CHAPTER 2 

Issue Category: Proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria for the State of Florida's Lakes and 

Flowing Waters: General Information 

Pages 1944 - 2615 

Response to Public Comments 

Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's 

Lakes and Flowing Waters 

November 14, 2010 

40 CFR Part 131 

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 

This document is part of a larger document 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for FL Lakes/Flowing Waters 

III - PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR FL 

LAKES/FLOWING WATERS 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1944
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

III.A - GENERAL INFORMATION 

No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

III.A.1 - WHICH WATER BODIES ARE AFFECTED BY THIS 

PROPOSED RULE? 

Comment ID 0491-1.001.004 

Author Name: Yarborough J. 

Organization: City of Palm Bay Utilities Department 

If the proposed NNC were required, the Utilities Department's ability to provide infrastructure expansion of its reuse 

system, and other wastewater treatment expansion driven by growth, would be critically impaired, if not impossible. The 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) when permitting reuse requires that surface water and ground 

water not be impaired - under the current proposed standard the quality of our existing reuse water would be seen as a 

detriment to surface and ground water quality. Reuse normally sent for irrigation would be diverted down the deep 

injection well. The proposed standard would have a negative effect on the policy of increasing reuse of both the FDEP 

and the St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 

Comment ID 0583.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

The proposed EPA rule establishing Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters 

stipulates that it applies only to Class I and Class III waters pursuant to 62- 302.400 FAC and 62-302.200 FAC. 

However, it is not clear from reading the proposed rule, the extent to which other elements of the Florida statutes or 

regulations apply. One fundamental implication of this involves the specific definition of affected water bodies. More 

specifically, are such features as stormwater retention ponds, wastewater effluent percolation ponds, reuse water 

impoundments, phosphate circulation ponds, ponds on phosphate reclaimed land (under phosphate company 

ownership or under other private ownership), ponds on agricultural land that was platted back in the 1920's Florida land 

boom but which has been used agriculture for decades, etc.? We, of course, assume that a permitted treatment or flow 

mitigation impoundment is not included, but we would like the conditions, exemptions or limitations more explicitly 

defined both for existing and new facilities. The intent would be to readily classify affected and unaffected waters as well 

as to assure that the stringent standards weren't inadvertently applied to man-made impoundments/ facilities whose 

intent was not as a "lake and flowing water". 

Comment ID 0589.001.008 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1945
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Foy J. 

Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 

8. Surface Water Management Systems for treating stormwater runoff are exempt from meeting water quality criteria in 

the State of Florida. This must be true in any NNC. It is absurd to adopt NNC that regulates the treatment systems. 

Comment ID 0596.001.005 

Author Name: Flowers J. 

Organization: City of Maitland 

Wastewater Industry is Decimated 

The rule fails to account for the wastewater industry in Florida. Most permits are at the 1.0ppm level for phosphorus, yet 

levels selected by this rule are two orders of magnitude lower. This would block the continued practice of water reuse 

system that is vital to our state's water supply and good for our state's hydrogeology. 

Comment ID 0600.001.001 

Author Name: McBee M. 

Organization: Brevard County 

The County's concern is will the proposed criteria apply to the County's actual MS4 which includes mile of ditches that 

are Class 3 state waters 

Comment ID 0640.001.007 

Author Name: Dudley S. 

Organization: Florida League of Cities in Tallahassee 

In another fain relating to we talked about water quality, but quantities is also going to be affected by what the EPA is 

trying to do. Because I don't know if you know it, but Florida is one of the leaders in the reuse of domestic wastewater. 

And we do know that reclaimed water does contain higher nutrients than regular wastewater. Have impact on Florida's 

reuse efforts. As you know, reclaimed water is on a lower cost alternative, but if the cost is too high and investment too 

risky, there will no longer water supply there makes the issue of numeric nutrient criteria water quantity based as well as 

water quality. 

Comment ID 0650.001.006 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1946
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Cox J. 

Organization: City of Tallahassee 

As I said, I work with city stormwater. We see stormwater management as probably, since most of our wastewater is 

offline and no discharge, as the thing where these standards have the potential to effect us the most. Our stormwater 

program is progressive; it's proactive. We were the first city in the State to adopt the stormwater utility. Our fee is at the 

top of all of the cities in the State then and now. It's also at the top of all of them in the nation. 

Comment ID 0656.001.004 

Author Name: Bolam D. 

Organization: Clay County Utility Authority 

And, lastly, I'd like to ask that an exemption be provided for Apricot Act discharges to surface waters from wastewater 

treatment facilities. If you're not familiar with the Apricot Act, it's an act in the Florida statute that allows -- it was enacted 

to promote the use of reclaimed water to conserve our potable water supplies, and it allows the wastewater facility to 

discharge up to 30 percent of its reuse capacity to surface waters as long as the discharge meets AWT standards. 

Without this exemption, many facilities that may or are contemplating implementing reclaimed water systems will be 

compelled first to provide the costly treatment to achieve the numeric nutrient criteria standard; and therefore, there will 

be less incentive and certainly less money at that time to fund a reuse system. 

Comment ID 0668.001.005 

Author Name: Mann D. 

Organization: Utility Council of the American Water Works Association 

What probably is not recognized is that, as Mr. Parsons talked about unintended consequences, there is one that is not 

readily apparent to some people; and that has to do with Florida's water supply. It's hard to believe that Florida has a 

water shortage, but it does. We have our droughts and wet cycles too. 

But with our growth over the last 20 years, we expect that between now and -- roughly in the next 15 years, to generate 

two billion more gallons per day for our citizens. And where this plays a part in what you're doing is that we've made an 

effort in Florida to start addressing this in the last five years aggressively. 

We've received state funding for the first time. That's matched by water management district funding and local utility 

funding. That's helped enormously in trying to reach that objective. But a major part of that effort has been to try to use 

reclaimed water to do this. And it's like you're almost getting a two-fer. You're cleaning up the water and using it again 

and putting a lot less stress on the aquifer, and this is helping Florida. And maybe it's a way out of this water supply 

dilemma that we face. If we had these standards applied to us, in the St. Johns region, we'd have about 433 million 

gallons per day of reclaimed water that would have to be replaced. In southwest Florida, it would be 413 million gallons 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1947
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

per day that we're now using in reclaimed water that because it would either have to be cleaned to a much higher level, 

which is very expensive, or find another source. And in South Florida where a large part of our population is, it would be 

somewhere in the range of about 508 million gallons per day. 

So I would encourage you, again, to see the problem not from just that people's utility rates are going to up, their sewer 

rates $62 dollars a month, and other factors; but that in an effort to clean up a problem, you may be creating another 

one here. 

Comment ID 0713.001.003 

Author Name: Merriam C. 

Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission 

One of the things that we've been working very closely with our regulators, especially on the drinking water side, over 

the last many years, is reusing wastewater as a replacement for irrigation and other sources, basically to back off some 

of the groundwater reliance we've had in the past. 

When I looked through the rule, I cannot find out how this proposed rule will impact the use of reuse water. I understand 

cause and contribute. Clearly, as I said, I've been in the state system a long time, I understand what that is and how it 

impacts it. But there's no relationship back. 

Working with Florida wastewater users, we understand that the implications of this rule can be very costly, again, as 

you've heard from Hillsborough County and others. As a community that recycles all of its wastewater, this lack of clarity 

is very important to us as to actually how this is going to be answered. I personally worked a couple of decades with the 

State Department of Environmental Protection and the Water Management Districts, all of whom were committed to 

finding the right balance of regulations to protect our valuable natural resources. 

Comment ID 0713.001.006 

Author Name: Merriam C. 

Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission 

What will be the impact of this rule on the reuse of wastewater in the State of Florida. 

Comment ID 0716.001.003 

Author Name: Coughenour F. 

Organization: Plant City 

It's also very unclear as to how those standards would apply to our reclaimed water system. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1948
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0734.001.004 

Author Name: Young K. 

Organization: Tampa Electric Company 

And the third is the potential effect of the numeric nutrient criteria on efforts to encourage domestic wastewater reuse. 

Comment ID 0734.001.009 

Author Name: Young K. 

Organization: Tampa Electric Company 

Finally, due to the unavailability of groundwater in this state, industry is increasingly looking toward domestic 

wastewater as a source of service water for its industrial processes. EPA did not consider the effects that this proposed 

numeric nutrient criteria would have on efforts to increase reuse. I'm over my time, but I'll hurry and wrap it up. 

EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria will hamper efforts by municipalities to increase reuse and efforts by industry 

to accept reuse water for processes because domestic wastewater cannot achieve the proposed criteria. Many times 

for industry to reuse this effluent it must be treated to achieve an appropriate water quality for its intended use. These 

treatment processes will require a backup surface water discharge and EPA's proposed criteria will make this 

unpermittable and force industry to install deep-well injection, a costly and imperfect disposal method that is oftentimes 

impossible given constraints of the geology of the well and the condition of the injectate. And we're going through some 

of these concerns currently at one of our facilities. 

Comment ID 0740.001.005 

Author Name: Lee C. 

Organization: Audubon of Florida 

In conclusion, I would like to deliver to you a couple of Audubon products. In the year 2007 we thought the Florida 

legislature had banned the main source of most of the new nutrients being introduced into the Okeechobee Watershed, 

which we have researched and detected to be resultant from sewage residuals in land spread. 

Frankly, the Department of Environmental Protection has, in our opinion, dragged its feet and we still do not have the 

legislative ban on spreading residuals in Okeechobee that we thought we got in the legislative session. The Department 

has come up with one excuse after another to allow the residual spreading to keep going. 

So I would like to leave with you two items, which I'll bring up. One is a report which Audubon has prepared as of July of 

last year and the other is our November 19, 2009 letter to Secretary Sole at DEP with regard to the sewage residual 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1949
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

issue. 

Comment ID 0740.001.006 

Author Name: Lee C. 

Organization: Audubon of Florida 

If as an outcome of setting these nutrient standards you do not target the response, then we may end up with a 

scattergun effect that does not get the most bang for the buck. We think the most bang for the buck lies with looking at 

where the most intense anthropogenic sources of nutrients are coming from and we believe that, at the very top of the 

heap, the unnecessary spreading of sewage residuals on large tracts of land in Florida is one of the reasons we are 

seeing nutrients escalate. 

We think there are ways to resolve that that do not involve the necessity for that spreading. We would urge EPA to look 

to that for a remedy and to help us push the Department of Environmental Protection to begin enforcing the law we 

thought was passed in 2007, which would at least ban that practice in the Okeechobee, St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee 

Watersheds. 

I'll bring these up. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0748.001.004 

Author Name: Godlewski V. 

Organization: City of Orlando Wastewater Division 

We're continuing with the development of a comprehensive reclaimed water system, which is eventually going to take 

more of that water away from the wetlands and move it towards urban uses. Our discharge will become more and more 

intermittent. But we're still going to need it because we need to manage the water every day it's coming. 

And we'd like to see the EPA take sort of a waste-load allocation perspective on this, because if we're not discharging it 

every day, it would give us more flexibility when we need to discharge, primarily during the wet weather conditions, and 

frankly our loads into the river system is going to be far less than what's coming from nonpoint sources. 

And we believe the reclaimed water systems are potentially going to be impacted by this rule. Nitrate requirements 

potentially in groundwater will be influenced, lake waters, other surface waters could force other utilities to, even us, to 

take even more care in treating our reclaimed water. 

Comment ID 0753.001.003 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1950
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

Orange County Utilities over the years has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to eliminate surface water 

discharges from our water reclamation facilities. Are facilities are permitted to treat over 70 million gallons of wastewater 

each day. 

If you're staying at this hotel, more than likely you are leaving behind nutrients that are processed by our South Water 

Reclamation Facility. This 40-million-gallon-a-day facility is about two miles from here and that facility, along with the 

City of Orlando, supplies irrigation to water the citrus crops about 20 miles to the west of here, for residential and 

commercial landscape irrigation and also to recharge the aquifer through the rapid infiltration basis. 

Like the City of Orlando, we have not discharged the flow of nutrients from our facilities since 1985. 

We do have surface water discharge from our Eastern Water Reclamation Facility, which is about six million gallons per 

day. It's processed by advanced waste treatment to a high degree and then followed by manmade and natural 

wetlands. These wetlands move additional nutrients, such as the nutrients that we do discharge to the 

Econolockahatchee River, a tributary to the St. Johns, are a small fraction of the total nutrients. And these wetlands 

would be dry if it were not for the hydration provided by our reclaimed water. All the flow that we reuse is water that 

would otherwise be discharged to surface water bodies. By embracing reuse, we prevent many thousands of pounds of 

nutrients from entering our surface waters and conserve precious potable water supplies. 

I would like to add to a comment that a previous speaker, Mr. Godlewski from the City of Orlando, made regarding 

waste load allocations. These reuse systems provide tremendous flexibility to not discharge at all when there is demand 

for reclaimed water and be able to discharge during wet weather events and still achieve a lower overall annual 

discharge of nutrients in surface waters. 

Comment ID 0753.001.004 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

We have a specific situation I do want to mention to you in our Northwest Water Reclamation facility. We have a threemillion-gallon-per-day discharge to manmade wetlands that now flow to Lake Martin. Lake Martin was a dry lake before 

being hydrologically restored by reclaimed water. Lake Martin is completely isolated from other water bodies and its 

only discharge is into the aquifer. Lake Martin is entirely on county property and it has always been exempt from 

surface water quality standards. Because it has been restored by the county's treated wastewater and has no 

downstream impacts, we feel like Lake Martin should remain exempt from water quality standards. The proposed rule 

does not state how manmade and historic water bodies would be regulated. 

Comment ID 0753.001.006 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1951
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

We are concerned that the proposed criteria may unintentionally discourage the reuse of highly-treated reclaimed water 

for environmentally beneficial purpose. Florida Water Management Districts and the DEP all have a long history of 

encouraging, even requiring greater amounts of reclaimed water be used. 

Numeric nutrient criteria do not consider site-specific conditions and hinder unnecessarily a utility's ability to permit 

beneficial reuse of surface water. We believe that anything that reduces beneficial reuse will tend to result in the use of 

more potable water for nonpotable applications, which creates a sudden significant environmental impact. 

Comment ID 0754.001.006 

Author Name: Flowers J. 

Organization: City of Maitland 

The man from Orlando, we buy our sewage capacity from him. If Orlando can't take Maitland's sewage, we don't have a 

sewage plant. You know, he's talking about doing deep-well injection in order to get rid of this and avoiding using the 

systems that of reuse that we built in our state. Reuse is one of the most important things Florida has done. I'm a lab 

director. I have four labs in Florida and we analyze reuse systems throughout the State of Florida. If it wasn't for those 

reuse systems, you would have a big salt dome here where you wouldn't have any fresh water. It's because we're 

pumping that fresh water back into our aquifers here through our reuse systems that we're able to maintain our water 

supply. So you're talking about ruining what I have spent my career as a scientist, as a chemist, building. 

Comment ID 0770.001.001 

Author Name: Wheeler B. 

Organization: Tohopekaliga (Toho) Water Authority 

Good evening. I'm Brian Wheeler with Toho Water Authority. Toho Water Authority operates nine water reclamation 

facilities in Osceola County and in the northeast part of Polk County. None of the facilities have a surface water 

discharge. F1 disposal is accomplished through a comprehensive land application system that includes extensive 

residential and commercial landscape irrigation, golf course irrigation, rapid infiltration basins, percolation ponds and 

effluent spray fields. Through this comprehensive and extensive land application irrigation system, effluent from the 

water reclamation facilities enters the surficial aquifer. Hopefully a significant portion of the effluent is taken up by the 

landscape and turf; however, a portion will blend into the surficial aquifer and migrate through the ground. We know 

then that the surficial aquifer contributes flow to the surface water bodies that flow into the Kissimmee River. 

The proposed numeric nutrient criteria regulations states that any entity that influences or contributes to the water 

quality of lakes and the flowing waters might be affected by the rule. 

This would appear to indicate that these proposed criteria may apply to wastewater systems like to the water authorities 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1952
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

with extensive reclaimed water systems. The application of these proposed criteria to reclaimed water systems needs to 

be clarified. TWA has developed and implemented a strategy over the past 20 years of developing an extensive 

reclaimed water system that has transitioned from being an effluent disposal system to becoming a key component of 

our water supply strategy. 

Half of our potable water demand is for landscape irrigation. The TWA has invested substantially over the years in this 

strategy. FDEP and the water management districts have encouraged and promoted this strategy for our utility as well 

as many others in Central Florida 

Comment ID 0804.001.004 

Author Name: Judah R. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners 

We would also submit that with the impact to our water treatment plant and the Caloosahatchee River that utilities 

actually will benefit from numeric nutrient criteria. We end up having to clean up all that blue green algae because of the 

nitrogen phosphorous that's in our waterway. And quite frankly, what we're looking at is maybe you'd consider looking at 

loading versus concentration because with loading, we now reclaim some 70 to 80 percent of waste water effluent, and 

that's really what you want to do is incentivize utilities to do that, and that may be an approach to take versus the 

concentration. 

Comment ID 0816.001.005 

Author Name: Perry M. 

Organization: Florida Oceanographic Society 

The classification of water systems in Florida, the class I, class II, class III and class IV and class V waters also 

address, and you're addressing class I and class III, which is potable water, and then the recreation propagation 

maintenance of healthy, well-balanced populations of fish and wildlife. Class II is for shellfish propagation and 

harvesting, and we do have some of those. Class IV is agricultural water supplies which may not be included in this 

system, and class V is navigation, utility and industrial use. What we get down to is really how do we, if we do 

implement a numeric standard, and I hope that all the other 70 parameters that do apply to water quality standards in 

Chapter 62 of Florida Administrative Code still apply and still take place for those other class of waters. It's going to get 

down to the Clean Water Act of 1972, you know, 40 years ago, and then finally getting the state in 1998 to recognize 

you've got to implement water standards. It took a long time. Finally, we need the federal help to develop these water 

quality standards, and we hope that you continue to do that and move forward in this process. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0825.001.002 

Author Name: Wilson-Davis L. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1953
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: City of Boca Raton 

Thirdly, I'd like to share with you the potential direct impacts the proposed numeric nutrient criteria data will have on the 

City of Boca Raton Utility Services Department and our customers. Realizing that the amount of traditional water 

sources available for future growth in South Florida were inadequate in order to protect the regional water supply and 

prevent future depletions of that supply. In 2006 the South Florida Water Management District enacted the regional 

availability rule. This placed limits or capped the amount of water that can be withdrawn from traditional sources such 

as the Biscayne aquifer. Additional water supply needs for residents in South Florida would have to come from 

alternative water supplies, including the reuse of reclaimed water. Subsequently, on June 30, 2008, Senate Bill 1302, 

also known as the Ocean AT Fault Bill was signed into law. This law replaced requirement on five utilities in South 

Florida, one requirement being the reuse of 60 percent of reclaimed water. An effective and environmentally sound way 

to meet these is to use reclaimed water, and the City of Boca Raton embarked on ambitious efforts to implement, 

expand and maximize the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water. The technology requirements and the cost associated 

with the numeric nutrient criteria standards with dubious environmental impact had the potential to curtail the beneficial 

reuse of reclaimed water, significantly crippling the water supply and needs of Floridians. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0843.001.004 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Southeast Florida Utility Council 

Some of the potential direct impacts proposed by the numeric nutrient criteria will have on the utilities and our 

customers, and realizing that the amount of traditional water sources available for growth in South Florida are 

inadequate, and in order to protect the regional water supply and prevent future depletions of the supply in 2006 the 

South Florida Water Management District enacted the Regional Availability Rule, which places limits or caps the 

amount of water that can be withdrawn from the Biscayne aquifer to supply the needs of residents of South Florida. 

They would have to come up with alternative water supplies, including the use of reclaimed water, with the subsequent 

adoption of Senate Bill 1302, also known as the Ocean Outfall Bill that was signed into law. This law placed 

requirements on five utilities in South Florida who serve over 6 million residents and comprise 40 percent of the total 

affluent in Florida that realize -- that utilize ocean outfall through the means of treated affluent disposal. This one 

requirement imposed by the legislation is to the use of 60 percent of that water is reclaimed water. The level of 

treatment will significantly increase the carbon footprint of what's now being used. We may have cleaner water, but we 

will have fewer icebergs. In effect, environmentally sound way to meet both the South Florida Water Management 

District's and statutory requirements, many of the utilities have gone on ambitious efforts to utilize this water on large 

golf courses, industry, and to provide a way to make use and utilize this, and also use it in stormwater ponds with 

stormwater. 

Comment ID 0852.001.003 

Author Name: Clark D. 

Organization: Cry of the Water 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1954
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

As far as the numerical standards, I am not sure -- people are here, some people stood up here and said well, we can't 

meet these standards. They're saying it's prohibitive to the reuse. And the senate bill they are referring to where they 

have to go to 60 percent reuse, I worked on that legislation, I was up in Tallahassee at those senate meetings and I 

guess they have to do reuse. But we had this discussion with many of the people at state DEP, and although some of 

the utility people and some of the local commissioners will go around telling you that one is prohibitive of the other 

because we can't do reuse and still have a numerical standard, it can't be done. It's simply not true. Okay. The reuse 

water was never meant to be, at least from my perspective, discharged directly to those canals; it's meant for irrigation. 

Half the water we use here in South Florida goes for irrigation anyhow. If it's done properly, a lot of those nutrients are 

taken up by the plants and the crops and that's how it's intended to work. They do it all over the state. I think they got 

about 80 percent reuse up there in places. And that bill, by the way, went through unanimously here in Florida. It was 

passed, there was no votes against it because people realize that they really need to change what they're doing. So I 

don't believe it's prohibitive. 

Comment ID 0854.001.003 

Author Name: Larson A. 

Organization: 

The Regional Availability Act, I am glad somebody brought that up, because that's a gallon of dirty water for a gallon of 

clean. That's all it is. We take gallon of dirty -- you know, clean water out of the earth and we put in a gallon of dirty. It's 

called deep well injection. It must have been made up by somebody who likes out of sight, out of mind crap. 'Cause I 

don't like crap and what I'm seeing here. 

Comment ID 0863.001.004 

Author Name: Howard B. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District 

On the wastewater side, we have had a highly effective wastewater reuse program in place since 1984. One of the 

biggest, greatest threats to the Loxahatchee River is the lack of sufficient flow to the river during the dry season. 

Because of these limited water resources, we are proud that every gallon of water used from our reuse program is a 

gallon saved from the natural system. In support of this, we implore you to exclude reuse water from the nutrient criteria 

so that we might maintain the alternative water supply and help to preserve our precious water resources in Florida. We 

specifically request that the reuse storage lakes at our treatment plants be excluded from meeting the nutrient criteria. 

Our 80 acres of reuse storage lakes provide us an opportunity to store water during periods of excess water availability 

for use during periods of drought, rather than sending that water down the deep well. We could not reuse the 80 to 90 

percent of the water - wastewater we receive each year, which translates to upwards of two billion gallons a year, 

without this excess storage capacity. We also simply can't treat our wastewater flowing into our reuse storage lakes to 

the proposed standards without significant - and I stress significant - increases in capital costs, operating costs, energy 

use, and, therefore, greenhouse gasinations. Related to our treatment plant storage lakes, we require our customers, 

primarily golf courses, to have on-site storage lakes to further buffer the water demands. Again, if these lakes were 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1955
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

subject to the nutrient criteria we would lose the storage capacity and significantly curtail the ability to sufficiently use 

the water throughout our service area. Finally, two of our customers store reuse water in a combined stormwater and 

reuse storage lakes. If these lakes were designed -- or these lakes are designed to, and our data shows, provide a very 

effective treatment. Therefore, we ask that you consider these scenarios an option, such as possible downstream 

mixing zone. Clearly reuse is good for Florida and reduces pressure on our natural water systems. Our customers 

reuse limited nutrients in our water, and, therefore, reduce the use of fertilizers. This, in turn, reduces the need to mine 

supplemental nutrient. Thank you for considering these issues. We hope that you will work with us to protect our 

valuable resources. 

Comment ID 0884.001.015 

Author Name: Wertephy A. 

Organization: Palm Beach County MS4 Program 

On behalf of the 40+ NPDES MS4 co-permittees in Palm Beach County, Florida, below are my comments on U.S. 

EPA's document for Water Quality Standards for the State ofFlorida's Lakes and Flowing. Waters proposed rule 

published January 26, 2010 in the Federal Register . 

1 . The definition of "lakes and flowing waters" on Pages 4182 and 4223 (Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 16) should be 

revised to exclude lakes and flowing waters within surface water management systems. pursuant to Florida Statutes 

373 .4142 : 

"State surface water quality standards applicable to waters of the state, as defined in s. 403 .031(13), shall not apply 

within a stormwater management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained for stormwater 

treatment in accordance with a valid permit or noticed exemption issued pursuant to chapter 62-25, Florida 

Administrative Code; a valid permit or exemption under s. 373.4145 within the Northwest Florida Water Management 

District ; a valid permit issued on or subsequent to April 1, 1986, within the Suwannee River Water Management District 

or the St. Johns River Water Management District pursuant to this part; a valid permit issued on or subsequent to March 

1, 1988, within the Southwest Florida Water Management District pursuant to this part; or a valid permit issued on or 

subsequent to January 6, 1982, within the South Florida Water Management District pursuant to this part. Such 

inapplicability of state water quality standards shall be limited to that part of the stormwater management system 

located upstream of a manmade water control structure permitted, or approved under a noticed exemption, to retain or 

detain stormwater runoff in order to provide treatment of the stormwater. The additional use of such a stormwater 

management system for flood attenuation or irrigation shall not divest the system of the benefits of this exemption. This 

section shall not affect the authority of the department and water management districts to require reasonable assurance 

that the water quality within such stormwater management systems will not adversely impact public health, fish and 

wildlife, or adjacent waters". (Emphasis added.) 

Comment ID 0896-2.001.012 

Author Name: * * 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1956
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners 

• The Rule also does not clearly distinguish estuarine and freshwater standards. The use of the term "predominately" is 

confusing. Salinity levels change with tide and seasons and the line of distinction may vary geographically. This is 

critical to Lee County where we have inter-connected riverine and estuary systems. 

Comment ID 0909.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

1, The numbers submitted for nutrient criteria in Florida are too high except for those proposed for the panhandle area. 

Comment ID 0934.001.004 

Author Name: Louda J. 

Organization: 

How will "municipal" waters be dealt with. That is, most "city" waters are over 500ppb due to the use of phosphates for 

the removal of hardness (Ca&Mg). 

Comment ID 0935.001.005 

Author Name: Perez A.
 

Organization: City of Hollywood Department of Public Utilities
 

The proposed criteria could result in future limitations in regional reuse water applications, since reuse has a high 

nitrogen and phosphorus content. Florida DEP is encouraging South Florida utilities to promote reuse; the proposed 

federal criteria may serve to restrict its use or necessitate costly treatment . 

Comment ID 0942.001.002 

Author Name: Reed K. 

Organization: 

NEED FOR MORE EFFECTIVE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1957
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Spraying wastewater on the ground is not working--especially in our area, which is basically sand dunes, with trees, so 

surface water seeps quickly to the groundwater[1] before plants can take up the nutrients. This method continues to 

increase the nutrient load in our ground water, creeks, and the bayou, and spraying sewage water on sand dunes 

indirectly feeds algae when we should, instead, be returning those nutrients to the terrestrial food web or using them for 

biofuels. Clearly, we need a new set of methods (different from spraying, dumping or otherwise putting our wastewater 

on or into the sand) to correct current sewage problems and prepare for the coming population increases-methods that 

will remove all the nutrients before the wastewater is released. We need to return the nutrients to the terrestrial food 

web instead of sending them downstream to feed the algae. 

Also, it seems counterintuitive to have a stream running through a sewage sprayfield (see below) 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information for site locations from K. Reed. See original comment 

letter. 

[1] DEP report 1998 ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/water/eco/tmdlgarnierc.pdf 

Comment ID 0945.001.003 

Author Name: Fields B. 

Organization: City of Winter Springs 

2. The Proposed Rule does not address the potential impact on the discharge of reclaimed water. The City of Winter 

Springs has an extensive reclaimed water system and we have ambitious plans to expand our reclaimed water system 

over the next decade. Although reclaimed water is not discussed in the Proposed Rule, we are concerned that the 

proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria could either directly or indirectly impact reclaimed water treatment 

requirements and our ability to expand our reclaimed water system as planned . Please clarify in the Rule that its 

implementation does not require reclaimed water to be treated to a level higher than current standards. 

Comment ID 0978-1.001.002 

Author Name: Saadeh M. 

Organization: Vineyards Community Association 

The need for the reclaimed water is always in the dry months of November through May. The water is used for irrigation 

purposes as well as raising the water level in the ponds during the dry season. When the rainy season starts, we stop 

purchasing reclaimed water and rely mostly on the rains to irrigate and elevate the water level in the ponds. All the 

ponds are interconnected and are tied to a water control structure that in extreme conditions such as floods or 

emergencies discharges into a canal that has controlled structures as well that were provided by us. Ultimately, the 

water from the canal could reach the Gordon River and Naples Bay. The water has to travel for miles of canals before 

reaching the river. In the 24 years we have been in existence, there have been 2 or 3 incidents where hurricanes and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1958
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

severe rainfalls have forced the water to discharge into the canal from our ponds. In those times, the super-majority of 

the existing water that was in the ponds came from rain water and not reclaimed effluent so the potential impact on the 

Gordon River or Naples Bay is de minimus. 

If the EPA decided to pass (CWA) 303(c), then please allow some leeway to the local authorities to determine the 

potential impact of providing effluent water in the dry season to communities like ours versus abruptly ceasing to 

provide the reclaimed water. This water is essential to irrigating our community and losing it will cause severe damage 

to the homeowners and golf courses. As an alternative, we urge you to grandfather in the communities like ours who 

have 24 years of history that have invested heavily in the reclaimed water system. We rely substantially on the 

reclaimed water in the dry season to keep the lawns and the golf courses green versus enforcing rules that simply 

penalize communities like ours and potentially destroy the community economically when there is clear evidence that 

receiving effluent water from the local County has no negative impact on the environment whatsoever. 

In summary, our community will be destroyed if the (CWA) 303(c) rules were to be enforced as proposed. Thus, if they 

are, please allow for existing communities like ours to be grandfathered in and exempt from these new regulations. We 

appreciate your consideration in this matter and look forward to a response. 

Comment ID 0985.001.001 

Author Name: No Surname Provided M. 

Organization: 

sludge is not fertilizer, it is a polutant because too much is dumped on land and the phosophorus levels in the land 

applied sludge are not monitored and are way too high to begin with. We all know water runs down hilll, so get the 

SLudge off the land and therefore clean up the water!!! Elementry my dear EPA, elementry!!! 

Comment ID 1004.001.003 

Author Name: Moser W. 

Organization: Forest Utilities, Inc. 

3) Utility reuse water could not be monitored effectively to prove that surronding bodies of water that do not meet the 

rule were affected by said reuse water. reuse storage pod monitoring wells are affect by the irrigation water use by the 

golf course and run-off from the community to which the serve. Enforcement would be arbitrary and caprious at best. 

Comment ID 1008.001.001 

Author Name: Cann M. 

Organization: The Forest Country Club 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1959
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

entities relying on effluent water would now have to seek other supplies from another water source that may not be 

available if waste water is deep well injected. 

Comment ID 1008.001.003 

Author Name: Cann M. 

Organization: The Forest Country Club 

what are the guidelines for surface or waterways shared by multiple entities ex. private residences, associations and 

businesses, who is responsible for what? 

Comment ID 1010.001.005 

Author Name: Nelson B. 

Organization: City of Bonita Springs 

Further, some City residents have the irrigation lines which use the wastewater, after becoming treated effluent, as 

irrigation or reuse water. A concern is whether the additional cost to remove total nitrogen and phosphorus is beneficial 

if it causes a need for additional fertilizer needs to be added to the area . Given that most of the irrigation lines are 

located (golf courses and common areas where maintenance is done through a property owner's association) where 

fertilizer use is limited because the professional landscaper knows it is contained within the reuse water, would be 

additional cost of treating to create a situation where additional fertilizer needs to be placed since the water is now more 

treated. As explained about the Fertilizer Ordinance (page 2 of comments) the proposed rulemaking may negate the 

very sound environmental practices that are occurring locally and may result is excessive additional costs. 

Comment ID 1011.001.006 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

3) Florida Statutes 373.4142 reads as follows: 

"State surface water quality standards applicable to waters of the state, as defined in s. 403.031(13), shall not apply 

within a storm water management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained for storm water 

treatment in accordance with a valid permit or noticed exemption issued pursuant to chapter 62-25, Florida 

Administrative Code; a valid permit or exemption under s. 373.4145 within the Northwest Florida Water Management 

District; a valid permit issued on or subsequent to April 1, 1986, within the Suwannee River Water Management District 

or the St. Johns River Water Management District pursuant to this part; a valid permit issued on or subsequent to March 

1, 1988, within the Southwest Florida Water Management District pursuant to this part; or a valid permit issued on or 

subsequent to January 6, 1982, within the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) pursuant to this part. 

Such inapplicability of state water quality standards shall be limited to that part of the storm water management system 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1960
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

located upstream of a manmade water control structure permitted, or approved under a noticed exemption, to retain or 

detain storm water runoff in order to provide treatment of the storm water. The additional use of such a storm water 

management system for flood attenuation or irrigation shall not divest the system of the benefits of this exemption. 

This section shall not affect the authority of the department and water management districts to require reasonable 

assurance that the water quality within such storm water management systems will not adversely impact public health, 

fish and wildlife, or adjacent waters". (abbreviation added) 

Since most water management systems within south Florida were created as part of the treatment train process for 

water quality improvement, they would not fall under the definition of waters of the United States, which are navigable. 

Therefore, the proposed rule should be clarified to state lakes, flowing waters and canals upstream of a manmade 

water control structure are not subject to the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1011.001.015 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

10) There are a few concerns that deal with the impacts to Utilities (specifically water, wastewater, & reuse water) as a 

result of the proposed standards being implemented. Monitoring of the nutrient levels within groundwater by our Utilities 

Department indicates that that the phosphorous levels in the water being pumped out of the ground are higher than the 

proposed EPA standards. This would mean the entire surficial aquifer could be considered a source of impairment. 

This presents two specific challenges to Utilities that would be very difficult to overcome. First, there are possible 

implications to all new water consumptive use permits and to all existing consumptive use permit renewals. Special 

Conditions attached to these permits from the SFWMD prohibit direct or indirect water quality harm or a water quality 

standards violation due to movement of water. Secondly, possible water quality violations due to the movement of water 

could end up eliminating the wastewater reuse program. This program, which is supported by both the SFWMD and 

DEP, has been in place for more than a decade as an alternative water supply source. Without it, the effluent would be 

discharged into a deep well, thus wasting a valuable resource. 

That, in turn, would mean that Homeowner Associations and golf courses who have taken advantage of this program 

would no longer receive supplemental water and would be seeking a new water source for irrigation supply to make up 

for the lost reclaimed water. This would all occur while there is fierce competition for all sources of water by a variety of 

stakeholders. From a Utility standpoint, this would mean a huge stranded investment in reuse facilities that could not be 

utilized . Even with Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) processes that use additional biological and chemical 

technologies (which will be cost prohibitive), it is questionable whether the technology can consistently meet the 

proposed EPA standards. 

We request that EPA consider adding language clarifying that the proposed standards are not intended to regulate 

consumptive use of water or the use of reclaimed water for irrigation and groundwater recharge. This would eliminate 

concern about the impact of the proposed rule on these activities. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1961
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1030.001.005 

Author Name: Ayech B. 

Organization: 

We know that it's cheaper to keep water clean than to clean it up. You may be aware of -- we have several water use 

caution areas. Those are areas in Florida where the use of water has exceeded the amount of water that can naturally 

recharge it. It is -- in my area I'm in two water use caution areas, the Eastern Tampa Bay water use caution area, and 

the Southern water use caution area. So there has been a great push to get people off of groundwater and onto surface 

water systems. As part of that, we have done interconnects with Manatee and Charlotte County. We have developed a 

huge reservoir for the Peace River Regional Water Supply Authority. And unfortunately, we still allow domestic 

residuals, which I call sludge, which is the ugly twin sister of reused water, to be land spread in watersheds. 

Comment ID 1041.001.003 

Author Name: Urich D. 

Organization: Responsible Growth Management Coalition 

Speaking of the Caloosahatchee, I was a little shocked to find that we don't have a Caloosahatchee River. The Corps of 

Engineers says we have Canal Number. C43 is what you look up, if you're ever looking in the documents. We really 

need to make it a river because it is. It may be it was slightly reversed in the historic past, but you didn't used to drain 

Lake Okeechobee, but I'm concerned that we casually use these terms, like canals and rivers, in a manner that isn't 

really appropriate. 

Comment ID 1049.001.003 

Author Name: Hill A. 

Organization: 

Now let's talk a little bit about sustainability. We know that a lot of municipalities have a wastewater challenge to deal 

with. I think there's a number of ways that we can deal with that. At the conservancy they recently have built a filter 

marsh that actually wasn't that expensive. It cleans up approximately 80 percent of the water coming from the Coastal 

Mall. If you know where -- know the conservancy in the Naples, that's a huge benefit to the Gordon River and Naples 

Bay area, which needs help. 

We could use the same approach with other areas of wastewater treatment. Those of you who have been into purchase 

fertilizer lately know where Milorganite comes from, it's from the good people in Milwaukee, I believe. So there's plenty 

of opportunity to focus on sustainability and reusing some of those wastewater areas. And that will sum up my 

comments. Thank you for coming today. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1962
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1056.001.004 

Author Name: Guest D. 

Organization: 

One other thing is that, you know, polishing ponds polishing wetlands takes a lot of acreage, you know, several acres, 

maybe a hundred acres even. In some urban areas that just isn't practical, and in that case you may have to just go to 

reuse. That's what other places do. And if you go to reuse with AWT water, you're not going to have any problems. We 

heard before, and I think it's right, that you can go a giant leap to dealing with runoff -- urban runoff pollution from MS4s, 

with simply having fertilizer restrictive ordinances. 

Comment ID 1059.001.001 

Author Name: Lyndall D. 

Organization: Daphne Utilities 

Daphne Utilities' Water Reclamation Facility discharges into the Blakeley River in the southern portion of the state of 

Alabama. We hold an NPDES permit with ADEM for this facility and were informed of EPA's proposed stringent nutrient 

limits for Florida waters. It is our understanding that these regulations will not impact our facility since our discharge 

body of water does not directly impact waters in Florida. If this is not correct, please contact our office so we can 

discuss the impact of the proposed regulation on our facility in order to provide comments to the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1075.001.007 

Author Name: Judah R. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners 

But it's tough living downstream, and quite frankly, what I would ask of you is to impose the nutrient numeric criteria. 

Understand that in Lee County we actually reclaim 70 percent of our wastewater effluent, that even though it's treated, 

we do not discharge it in the river we use it for irrigation. And what I would ask of you is perhaps consider loading 

allocation versus concentration, in order to incentivize other wastewater utilities to pursue reclaiming wastewater and to 

provide an alternative to discharging into waterways and use it as reclaimed water for irrigation purposes. 

Comment ID 1080.001.003 

Author Name: Angelucci B. 

Organization: 

I have a real concern about drinking water in Manatee County, especially since most of our county commissioners 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1963
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

recently voted to allow the reuse of reclaimed water within an area of the watershed which provides the drinking water 

for the City of Bradenton. The board discussions disclosed that the standards for pharmaceuticals and insecticidal 

chemicals were not in place, but that did not stop this reckless decision. 

Comment ID 1091.001.008 

Author Name: Lewis R. 

Organization: Chamber of Commerce of Southwest Florida 

Maintaining current quality criteria for reuse water, which is an important component of sustainability with respect to 

water usage in South Florida, and extending the implementation time frame to ensure there's time for proper criteria 

development and to avoid false starts. 

Comment ID 1098-3.001.011 

Author Name: Vance A. 

Organization: City of Bonita Springs 

Further, some City residents have the irrigation lines which use the wastewater, after becoming treated effluent, as 

irrigation or reuse water. A concern is whether the additional cost to remove total nitrogen and phosphorus is beneficial 

if it causes a need for additional fertilizer needs to be added to the area. Given that most of the irrigation lines are 

located (golf courses and common areas where maintenance is done through a property owner's association) where 

fertilizer use is limited because the professional landscaper knows it is contained within the reuse water, would be 

additional cost of treating to create a situation where additional fertilizer needs to be placed since the water is now more 

treated. As explained about the Fertilizer Ordinance (page 2 of comments) the proposed rulemaking may negate the 

very sound environmental practices that are occurring locally and may result is excessive additional costs. 

Comment ID 1137.001.005 

Author Name: Richards J. 

Organization: Pasco County 

Also, as discussed by Water Management District, Pasco County -- many Pasco County residents use reclaimed water 

for outdoor irrigation. We use over 15 million gallons per day annual average. And we fear that these standards could 

curtail the use of or prevent the expansion of this vital water resource. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1230.001.009 

Author Name: Craw V. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1964
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

The Water Management District has a greater interest in resource management than just water quality, we are also 

concerned with quantity, and as such, the Water Management District supports the use of reclaimed water as a method 

of lessening dependence on groundwater. 

We are concerned about potential unintended impacts that the proposed numeric nutrient criteria will have on reclaimed 

water use. Limiting the use of reclaimed water could result in a significant impact on the conservation of our water 

resources, as all water use needs to be considered. 

We are concerned, for example, about limiting the ability of industrial water users that have M.P.D.E.S. permits to utilize 

reclaimed water in lieu of groundwater, even when the use results in a net improvement to nutrient levels. 

We are concerned about limiting the ability of suppliers to transfer reclaimed water between basins as an offset to 

groundwater use, even when that use results in a net reduction in nutrient levels. 

We are concerned about impacting the ability of non-point source dischargers, both agricultural and residential, to use 

reclaimed water when even when that use results in a net reduction in nutrient levels. 

Comment ID 1254.001.006 

Author Name: Lovely S. 

Organization: Pinellas County Utilities 

Another portion of our north Pinellas County water rec- -- wastewater reclamation facility has reuse distribution system
 

that falls in the Coast Springs group waters, okay, this reuse being the only disposal method from that facility, for both
 

places that it goes. 


This reclaimed water goes primarily to one golf course with stormwater ponds which, at the ground -- or the golf course
 

outfall will have problems meeting the proposed T.N. criteria of 1.205 milligrams per liter. 


Therefore, there is concern regarding potential need for large capital outlay costs if the proposed criteria are
 

implemented. 


So we're now concerned that reuse is not going to be viewed as a better way to dispose of reclaimed water, which goes
 

against SWFWMD's conservation strategy that has been in place to reduce the use of potable water for irrigation
 

purposes.
 

Our staff Pinellas County facility is already an advanced wastewater treatment facility. It disposes its effluent by use of
 

reclaimed water and a service water discharge. Basically, the surface water discharge volume increases with wet
 

weather.
 

It is part of the Springs Coast group coastal waters.
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1965
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Previously the site used deep well injection for effluent disposal. This was stopped in accordance to a D.E.P. consent 

order. This facility will also have problems meeting the proposed total nitrogen criteria of 1.205 milligrams per liter 

without at least 10 million dollars being spent to redo both process trains. 

I also want to state that we are in opposition to the use of reference sites as proposed by E.P.A. where numeric nutrient 

criteria are alone not sufficient. Numeric nutrient criteria need to also be supported by appropriate biological indicators. 

Our concerns are that funds will need to be used to meet these numeric criteria as proposed, if available in county 

government, that these funds should be much better spent in truly impaired waters. 

Comment ID 1255.001.010 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

Rather, the City respectfully requests that this rulemaking incorporate the chlorophyll a targets and associate -­

associated nitrogen loads as site-specific alternative criteria for Tampa Bay. The City supports and incorporates the 

comments of the previous statements of the estuary program, the Nitrogen Management Consortium, Sarasota, 

Pinellas, Manatee, Pasco, and Hillsborough counties, Plant City, the Florida Stormwater Association, the Tampa Port 

Authority and the Mosaic Corporation. 

Comment ID 1256.001.004 

Author Name: Wilson K. 

Organization: 

On the freshwater rulemaking, I would like to -- to reiterate something that one of my Pinellas County colleagues made, 

a comment she made earlier about having a minimum criteria for lake sizes. 

As I mentioned in earlier comments, we -- we have very limited number of very small lakes or ponds in the county, and 

they're freshwater. The concern that has been expressed by our -- by our water utility is that the drinking water we 

supply that comes exclusively from mainland is already six times the concentration of some of the phosphate limits that 

are being proposed for freshwater discharges. 

The concern, therefore, is that our consumptive use permits, which require water reuse, may be at risk. And when we 

bring water in that's already well above the discharge limits, and we have some small ponds in areas where that water 

is reused after it goes through the A.W.T. plant for irrigation, may run afoul of some limit. 

I don't have an answer, I don't have a scientific answer for that, I only urge that we consider what effect that might have 

on reuse of water, which is something we are all trying to encourage. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1966
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Beyond that, we look forward to making further comments on the coastal water. 

MR. KING: Just a question. Your reuse water is being discharged into your ponds or holding -­

MR. WILSON: No. It's being used for irrigation where there are ponds. And, therefore, as they irrigate in an area where 

there is a pond, that water can run into the pond. 

If that's a small pond, the water -- the water that comes in is six times the level of phosphate, gets -- goes through the 

wastewater treatment plant, and then gets reused and sprayed on an area where there is a freshwater pond. 

We are concerned the rules might apply to that pond and there -- might discourage us from reusing that water, which is 

just not exactly what we are trying to achieve. 

Thank you. 

Comment ID 1261-1.001.004 

Author Name: Dinneen J. 

Organization: Volusia County 

Volusia County includes stormwater discharges under its Phase II MS4 permit. Stormwater discharges from a pipe or 

confined ditch within a permitted MS4 are considered point sources according to the Clean Water Act. While MS4 

discharges can be episodic, a measure of the average concentration of a pollutant during a storm event is called an 

event mean concentration (EMC). In the development of statewide stormwater treatment regulations, FDEP is using 

"Evaluation of Current Stormwater Design Criteria within the State of Florida" (Harper, H.H. and D.M. Baker, 

Environmental Research & Design, Inc., June 2007). Table 4-17 from this report identifies the literature-based runoff 

characterization for undeveloped/ rangeland/ forest lands (natural lands): TN is 1.15 mg/l and TP is 0.055 mg/l. From 

the proposed NNC for the Volusia County streams, lakes, and springs, natural lands would not be allowed to discharge 

into clear lakes because of TN and TP and not allowed in colored lakes for TN. 

Comment ID 1264.001.005 

Author Name: Melton K. 

Organization: Orlando Utilities Commission 

The proposed rule also fails to address the unintended consequence of eliminating the reuse of reclaimed water. In 

implementing the proposed rule, neither the E.P.A. nor D.E.P. have indicated how reuse or reclaimed water will be 

impacted. 

Depending on the implication of the proposed rule, utilities could be required to treat reused water to the same 

standards required for in-stream waters because of the potential infiltration or runoff of reused into Class I or Class III 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1967
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

waters regulated under the rule. 

To meet these standards, reuse facilities will have to use very possibly membrane process for advanced wastewater 

treatment. Because the facility will have to treat this water to the same levels as subsurface water, there is no incentive 

to spend additional money for the transmission of reuse, instead, these facilities will discharge directly into the surface 

water. 

This reduction in reclaimed water available for consumptive uses will also result in an increased demand for ground and 

surface water supplies. 

In order to avoid this potential impact on reuse of reclaimed water, the E.P.A. should clearly state that the proposed rule 

should not be used to establish elevated treatment standards for reclaimed water plants. 

Comment ID 1291-1.001.002 

Author Name: Brown A. 

Organization: The City of Pompano Beach Utilities Administration 

We are concerned about the future of reuse water to augment stormwater ponds and lakes. Since the draft rule does 

not differentiate between artificial and natural systems, stormwater lakes and ponds connected to canals would be 

subject to the rule. As these artificial waterbodies will not be able to meet the water quality and biological criteria of this 

rule (since they were never intended to do so), reuse will not be allowed as an augmentation due to the nutrient levels 

found in secondary and tertiary reuse. It does not appear that even Advanced Treated Wastewater can meet this 

standard. We believe that the prevention of reuse augmentation for these systems is an unintended consequence of the 

rule, and we request exemptions for these systems within the rule. 

Comment ID 1298-1.001.006 

Author Name: Gastesi R. 

Organization: Board of County Commissioners, County of Monroe 

While the County has a limited inventory of fresh water bodies, we are concerned about the application of nutrient limits 

to small isolated (usually man•made) ponds. lf interpreted to apply to small manmade ponds (such as on golf courses or 

individual properties) the limits on nutrients might discourage the re-use of treated water on the surrounding vegetation. 

In the County, virtually all of the potable water used is transported from the mainland. Any reuse of treated wastewater 

displaces a use of imported freshwater. As a policy matter, the reuse of treated wastewater is encouraged in the South 

Florida Water Management District's permitting criteria [2] and Basis of Review [3]. 

The reuse of wastewater is also a condition of our consumptive use permit. Application of stringent nutrient limits to 

these water bodies may prohibit the use of 1.5 - 2.5 MGD of reclaimed water for irrigation, in tum, preventing the Florida 

Keys Aqueduct Authority from meeting obligations within its consumptive use pennit. This financial impact cannot be 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1968
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

understated because these existing wastewater systems might have to undergo significant modifications including 

additional treatment and storage facilities. 

[2] Rule 40E-20.301, F.A.C. and Rule 40E-2.30 1, F.A.C. 

[3] Basis of Review for Water Use Penn it Application, 3.2.3.2 Reuse Requirements 

Comment ID 1348-1.001.006 

Author Name: Vick J. 

Organization: Gulf Power Company 

For example, Gulf has worked closely with the Emerald Coast Utility Authority, EPA Region IV and the DEP to work out 

permitting issues related to use of highly treated reclaimed wastewater and the subsequent build-out of a new waste 

water treatment system serving the numerous communities in Escambia County. This project will result in a substantial 

reduction of up to 20 MGD surface water discharges and very substantial reductions in nutrient loading in Pensacola 

Bay. It is a win for the environment and all citizens in this area. This partnership has been a key component in obtaining 

funding for this very important water quality improvement project. 

Comment ID 1348-1.001.013 

Author Name: Vick J. 

Organization: Gulf Power Company 

4. Alternative Water Supply Development 

In Florida, we are facing significant water supply challenges. Strains on traditional water supplies have led to caps on 

groundwater withdrawals in central Florida, [9] the identification of water use caution areas in southwest Florida, [10] 

and a substantial initiative to meet projected water demands in southeast Florida with reclaimed water. [11] 

EPA's proposed rule provides no indication that the agency has considered how the proposed NNC will affect regulatory 

programs and projects designed to achieve water supply demands. Florida's water management districts, however, are 

absolutely depending on the reuse of reclaimed water to meet projected water supply demands.[12] The Gulf Power ­

Emerald Coast Utility Authority project is an example of this type of reuse; in addition, Gulf is continuously looking at 

reclaimed water as a viable water source for its future needs. 

[9] Groundwater withdrawals are presently capped by the three water management districts sharing jurisdiction over the 

"Central Florida Coordination," because the districts have concluded that "sustainable quantities of groundwater in 

central Florida are insufficient to meet all future public water supply demands and that there is an immediate need to 

develop and implement supplemental water supply projects." See http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/projects/cfca/; 

https://my.sfwmd.gov/ portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_watersupply/pg_sfwmd_watersupply_centralflcoord; and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1969
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

http://cfcawater.com/ 

[10] The Southwest Florida Water Management District has established the "Southern Water Use Caution Area" in a 

region of Southwest Florida where the District has concluded that water resources will become critical over the next 

twenty years. See SWFWMD, SWUCA, at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/waterman/swuca/. 

[11] See discussion infra regarding Ocean Outfalls legislation. 

[12] SRJWMD, 2005 District Water Supply Plan, Fourth Addendum, 5 (May 12, 2009) ("SJRWMD has estimated that 

200 million gallons per day (mgd) of alternative water supplies or a reduction in demand through water conservation 

and increased use of reclaimed water (see subsection titled Replacement of Potable Water Supply Use) would have to 

be implemented to meet the projected water demands identified in Water Supply Assessment 2003 (WSA 2003) without 

resultant unacceptable impacts to water resources and related natural systems."), available at 

http://sjr.state.fl.us/technicalreports/pdfs/TP/SJ2006-2Addendum4.pdf; SWFWMD, 2005 Regional Water Supply Plan 

(Dec. 2005) ("Reclaimed water, if used effectively and efficiently, has great potential to help meet the 2025 water supply 

demand."), available at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/plans/RWSP/rwsp.pdf; NWFWMD, 2008 Region III 

Regional Water Supply Plan, 9 (Aug. 2008) ("Reuse of treated wastewater and storm water also comprises a strategy 

that holds promise for both reducing near term and managing long-term water demand.") available at 

http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/rmd/water_supply_planning/Region%20III%20RWSP_08-12­

08%20FINALweb%20version.pdf; SFWMD, Below the Surface: An In-depth Look at Water Reuse: A Safe and Effective 

Way to Save Water (2005), available at http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/pls/portal/docs/15246931.PDF. 

Comment ID 1348-1.001.014 

Author Name: Vick J. 

Organization: Gulf Power Company 

EPA's proposed NNC will significantly hamper efforts by municipalities with publicly owned treatment works to increase 

reuse and as well as corresponding initiatives by industry to accept reuse water for its processes, all because domestic 

wastewater cannot achieve EPA's proposed NNC criteria. Many times, for industry to reuse this effluent, it must be 

treated to achieve an appropriate water quality for its intended use. These treatment processes will require a back-up 

surface water discharge and EPA's proposed criteria will make this unpermittable and force industry to install deep-well 

injection, a costly disposal method. 

As mentioned earlier in this letter, reuse of treated domestic wastewater in Florida is a big win for the environment, both 

with respect to water supply and water quality. The Gulf Power - Emerald Coast Utility Authority project is a prime 

example. EPA's proposed NNC represent a significant setback to this important program in Florida. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.071 

Author Name: Herr M. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1970
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Polk County 

Springs and Clear Streams 

• A spring run is defined as a free-flowing water body that receives more that 50% of its flow from a spring. However, it 

is not defined as to whether this determination is based on an instantaneous measurement, annual average, period of 

record average, or other measurement. 

Comment ID 1355-1.001.003 

Author Name: Barker V. 

Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 

Unintended Application of Criteria: Application of NNC should specifically exclude manmade structures, facilities, 

conveyance channels and utilities unless constructed expressly to mitigate for alteration of natural systems. Municipal 

Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) consist of extensive open channels whose purpose is the 

transportation/conveyance and treatment of stormwater. Roadside canals, stonnwater ponds, borrow pits, and open 

channels connected by storm sewer pipes are considered Class III waters by FDEP. EPA's criteria developed for 

natural streams (aka Class III waters) are inappropriate for open storm sewer systems whether public MS4s or 

stormwater facilities for private development. In addition, historical agricultural drainage systems that become 

reclassified from IV to III at the time of development should not be held to the same EPA criteria as natural streams. 

Comment ID 1355-1.001.011 

Author Name: Barker V. 

Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 

Criteria Details & Definitions: The rule should include de minumus criteria or minimum dimensions for regulated waters . 

Is a rivalette that is I' foot across and 2" deep a stream? Is a puddle of 100 square feet a "lake"? How is a stream 

differentiated from a lake and a lake differentiated from a wetland? Much of the upper St. Johns River functions like a 

lake during the annual wet season. 

Comment ID 1355-2.001.089 

Author Name: Barker V. 

Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 

Many Florida streams have been altered for agriculture or flood control. These streams are not restricted to EPA's 

definition of south Florida canals. The degree of physical alterations to streams will affect the function of these streams 

and potentially reduce their assimilative capacity. The degree of urbanization and physical alterations to streams should 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1971
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

be considered in either the development or evaluation process. 

When does a stream become a canal? It appears that the EPA considers there to be no streams in south Florida and 

no canals north of south Florida. However, the Blackwater River, Estero River, and Six-Mile Cypress are beautiful 

streams in south Florida while the Lake Tarpon Canal (in Pinellas County) is not a stream in any reasonable 

interpretation of the word, it is a water conveyance structure. The definition of a stream should be clarified to address 

the many streams outside south Florida that have been physically altered. It is worth noting that south Florida was 

considered to have only either canals or wetlands and therefore no stream criteria were established for south Florida. 

Comment ID 1360-1.001.006 

Author Name: Cook R. 

Organization: Daytona Beach Utilities Department 

- Water Management Districts require the use of the lowest quality water to be used first for irrigation. This reuse then 

becomes run-off and will still go into a water body. Utilities will either have to discontinue reuse or treat it to the same 

standards which are in some cases higher quality than potable water. Higher treatment would be more expensive and 

the overall cost of reuse would be higher than potable water and therefore would effectively shut down reclaimed water 

as an alternative source for irrigation as it is priced out or regulated into nonexistence. This unintended consequence of 

killing reuse is a contradiction to water conservation efforts as well as a violation of many consumptive use permits 

issued in Florida. The cost of other water sources becomes prohibitive. Thereby, generating more consumption of 

higher quality water because we cannot afford to make reclaimed or because the limits cannot be met. We would be 

forced to discard a very valuable resource. Discharge of reclaimed water would place multiple utilities in noncompliance with regard to certain conditions of a consumptive use permit. 

Comment ID 1360-1.001.007 

Author Name: Cook R. 

Organization: Daytona Beach Utilities Department 

- If reclaimed water is priced out or regulated into non-existence, we, in the State of Florida, would lose this product as a 

way of recharging Florida's aquifer or for rewatering the wetlands. The lack of this product would create yet another 

environmental impact as we would lose an alternative water source, as well as drive up the use of potable water for 

irrigation as no reclaimed would be available. 

Comment ID 1364-1.001.005 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1972
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

IV. Lee County's Comments on the Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

While supportive of water quality improvement initiatives, Lee County is uncertain how the proposed Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria will impact the County and other local governments. Lee County is permitted as a "Municipal Separate 

Stormwater System" (often referred to as a MS4) and operates eight wastewater treatment facilities. The MS4 and two 

of the wastewater treatment facilities are regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP"), by 

way of delegation from EPA, through its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting 

program. Seven of Lee County's wastewater treatment facilities produce reclaimed water as a valuable alternative water 

supply. Thus, the proposed Rule has the potential to impact multiple operations of Lee County. 

Comment ID 1364-1.001.012 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

F. Effect on Reclaimed Water 

In Florida, due to limited water supply, the use of reclaimed water has been mandated by state and regional agencies to 

offset potable supply. Reclaimed water can be utilized to meet a variety of water uses such as: irrigation; urban wetland 

development, restoration and/or enhancement; ground water recharge; salt water intrusion protection; augmentation of 

surface waters; and industrial purposes. Under the proposed numeric nutrient standards, the use of reclaimed water 

might not only be hindered, but potentially could be eliminated as an option completely. This will not only eliminate an 

important alternative water supply and undermine potable water conservation, but costly infrastructure will become 

obsolete. 

Lee County's reclaimed water has provided a valuable alternative water supply that reduces the County's demand for 

ground and surface water sources. Additionally, the reclaimed water serves as a beneficial use for wastewater effluent 

that reduces outfall discharges to waters of the state. Further, EPA has not provided clear direction as to the application 

of the proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria on non-point sources or on a watershed basis. Clarification from the EPA as 

to the application of the proposed rule on reclaimed water is critical' and the County welcomes the opportunity to work 

with the EPA on these reclaimed water issues. 

Comment ID 1364-1.001.019 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

Regarding Rule implementation, the Numeric Nutrient Criteria do not clearly distinguish estuarine and freshwater 

standards. The use of the term "predominately" is confusing.[3] Salinity levels change with tide and seasons and the 

line of distinction may vary geographically. This is critical to Lee County where we have inter-connected riverine and 

estuary systems. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1973
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

[3] EPA defines "predominately fresh waters" to mean surface waters in which chloride concentration at the surface is 

less than 1,500 mg/L. Lee County Utilities has two NPDES permitted wastewater treatment plants that discharge into 

the Caloosahatchee River west of S-79. This area of the river is deemed to be marine, but under the EPA defmition of 

fresh waters the location of our outfalls could possibly meet the definition of fresh throughout certain times of the year. 

Depending on what is "predominately" could place our outfalls under fresh water stream criteria instead of estuarine. 

The term "predominately" needs to be clarified. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.004 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

Because of the intermittent demand for reclaimed water for irrigation, we believe that a waste load allocation, rather 

than maximum limits on in-stream concentrations, would be more effective for reducing nutrient discharges while 

encouraging reuse irrigation by allowing utilities the flexibility to discharge only when demand is low. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.007 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

We are concerned that the proposed NNC may unintentionally discourage the reuse of highly treated reclaimed water 

for environmentally beneficial uses. The Florida water management districts and Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP) all have a long history of encouraging and even requiring greater amounts of reclaimed water reuse. 

NNC that do not consider site-specific conditions may unnecessarily hinder a utility's ability to implement beneficial 

reuse near surface waterbodies (that is, nearly everywhere in central Florida). Anything that reduces beneficial reuse 

will tend to result in the use of more potable quality water for non-potable applications, which creates its own significant, 

negative environmental impact. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.025 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

12. Many reclaimed water systems rely on the ability to discharge to surface waters on an intermittent basis during wet 

weather periods. The current regulations are silent as to how the rule will be applied to intermittent dischargers, whether 

from the plant or ponds used for system storage. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1974
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.036 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

2. Consider setting a technology based standard for water reclamation facilities, similar to the existing secondary 

treatment standard that is commensurate with their relative contribution of nutrients to a waterbody. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.037 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

3. Encourage increased reuse of reclaimed water by defining specific conditions under which wet weather discharges 

are allowed for facilities that supply significant reuse systems. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.038 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

4. Allow by regulation, intermittent wet weather overflows from stormwater ponds that are used as system storage for 

reclaimed water systems provided the treatment system meets a defined technology based standard. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1975
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.044 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

10. Establish long-term mass loading rates for nutrients rather than concentration limits to encourage beneficial reuse 

and make wet weather discharges more manageable. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.046 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

12. Exclude reuse water from the rule to encourage beneficial reuse. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.056 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

22. Intermittent discharges from wet weather flows should be addressed more clearly in the proposed rule to explain 

how the rule will be applied under these circumstances. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.057 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

1.0 COST ESTIMATE 

Water treatment technologies exist to produce reclaimed water with any desired water quality including the ultra pure 

water required for electronics manufacturing and high-pressure boiler feed water. The very low concentration limits on 

TN and TP being proposed by FDEP can be met, although at significant cost, by adding additional treatment processes 

at the end of a typical Florida AWT plant. Water treatment technologies that might be used to meet numeric nutrient 

limits include high-pressure membranes (reverse osmosis and nanofiltration), adsorption (activated carbon and reactive 

filtration), oxidation (ozone, UV, peroxide), chemical coagulation and precipitation, and ion exchange. Since most of 

these technologies are typically used for applications other than removing nutrients from reclaimed water, little data 

exists on their performance in removing nitrogen and phosphorus in this application. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1976
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Reverse osmosis (RO) is a leading candidate technology when considering very low nutrient limits because of its ability 

remove nearly all pollutants to very low concentrations, and the extensive experience with this technology for 

desalination and water reclamation for indirect potable reuse. In simple terms, RO is a selectively permeable barrier that 

rejects nearly all contaminants larger than a specific size, while letting water molecules through. A number of large 

water reclamation plants currently use RO to produce very high quality reclaimed water. These include the West Basin 

plant in El Segundo California (22.5 mgd), the Scottsdale Arizona Water Campus (14 mgd), the GWRS (70 mgd) plant 

in Orange County California and four NEWater plants in Singapore (Bedok, 8.4 mgd; Kranji, 10.6 mgd; Seletar, 5.0 

mgd; and Ulu Pandan, 39.1 mgd) among others. 

Figure 1 provides a schematic representation of the sequence of treatment zones with the selected additional 

technology of reverse osmosis membranes and associated concentrate disposal. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1, which is a schematic illustration of a 

microfiltration/reverse osmosis treatment system. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.058 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

RO systems create several significant challenges. First, since membranes simply separate pollutants from water, RO 

creates a "concentrate" stream, typically 15 to 20% of the feedwater that contains concentrated levels of the rejected 

pollutants. Finding economical methods to reuse or dispose of concentrate can be a challenge. In areas with suitable 

geology, deep well disposal is an option. Discharging the concentrate to a sewage collection system other than the one 

with the RO system can be another option if the associated water reclamation facility or its reuse application are not 

adversely impacted, and required approvals can be obtained. Concentrate cannot be recycled upstream of a RO 

system as the salt concentration very quickly builds to intolerable levels. Concentrate can also be evaporated, dried, 

and landfilled; however, both the capital and operating costs of drying concentrate are high. 

Another significant drawback to RO treatment is the high power cost required to operate an RO system. Adding RO to 

the typical water reclamation plant will increase power consumption to an already energy-intensive system by at least 

60%. The practical minimum power requirement for an RO system treating reclaimed water is about 1,000 kWh per 

mgal treated, compared with the average power consumption for existing water reclamation facilities of about 1,500 

kWh/mgal. 

RO membranes also tend to foul quickly in reclaimed water applications, requiring pretreatment of feedwater and 

regular chemical cleaning of the membranes, both of which increase the cost and complexity of building and operating 

an RO system. At present most reclaimed water RO systems use microfiltration (MF) for pretreatment. 

Finally, RO treatment still needs to be preceded by a BNR process. RO will not remove ammonia and nitrate to the 

degree required due to their similar size and molecular characteristics to water. A typical RO membrane will reject about 

90% of the nitrate and 95% of the ammonia in the feedwater. While phosphates are better removed by RO membranes 

(rejection >= 99.8%), too much phosphorus going to an RO system will also foul membranes as a result of the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1977
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

precipitation of insoluble phosphate compounds. 

List of Assumptions 

• Project costs include estimated construction costs plus 30% for contingencies and 20% for administrative, legal,
 

engineering, and financing costs.
 

• Estimates assume all treatment facilities not meeting AWT must be upgraded to provide advanced wastewater
 

treatment and concentrate drying for landfill disposal.
 

• Annual debt service is based on 30-year amortization schedule and 5% interest.
 

• The range of project costs is based on two scenarios. The lower project cost assumes that only surface water
 

discharge capacity would be required to comply with the proposed nutrient criteria. The higher project cost assumes
 

that the total plant capacity will be required to comply with the proposed nutrient criteria.
 

• Capital upgrades and operating costs are assumed to be required for the surface
 

discharge flow capacity of each facility for the low-end range of costs. Capital upgrades are assumed to be required for
 

the total design flow capacity of each facility, while operating costs are assumed to be for the average of the current and
 

design flows for the high-end range of costs.
 

• Capital costs to upgrade existing facilities to meet Florida AWT limits are assumed to be $8.20/gallon per day of
 

permitted treatment capacity.
 

• A capital cost of $5.00/gallon per day of permitted treatment capacity (feed water low) is assumed to add tertiary
 

microfiltration (MF) and reverse osmosis (RO) to existing facilities.
 

• A capital cost of $3.10/gallon per day of treatment capacity (feed water flow) is assumed to construct brine
 

concentrators and crystallizers for concentrate treatment.
 

• The wastewater is assumed to have the pertinent parameters at low enough
 

concentrations so that concentrate drying does not result in the generation of a hazardous solid waste.
 

• A water recovery of 80% is assumed for MF/RO treatment.
 

• An incremental cost of $1.00/1000 gallons treated is assumed for the annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs
 

associated with running AWT and MF/RO.
 

• A cost of $3.00/1000 gallons treated is assumed for the O&M cost associated with running a brine
 

concentrator/crystallizer. This is based on the facility flow and is in addition to the costs for operating the AWT and
 

MF/RO facilities.
 

• All plants are assumed to incur similar construction and operating costs even though there will be major differences in 

treatment upgrades from plant to plant. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1978
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

• Comparable costs for facility upgrades that were provided by various utilities are assumed correct. 

Comment ID 1416-1.001.027 

Author Name: Alves J. 

Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. 

4. Alternative Water Supply Development 

In Florida, we are facing significant water supply challenges. Strains on traditional water supplies have led to caps on 

groundwater withdrawals in central Florida,[45] the identification of water use caution areas in southwest Florida,[46] 

and a substantial initiative to meet projected water demands in southeast Florida with reclaimed water.[47] 

EPA's proposed rule provides no indication that the agency has considered how the proposed NNC will affect regulatory 

programs and projects designed to achieve water supply demands. Florida's water management districts, however, are 

absolutely depending on the reuse of reclaimed water, as well as other alternative, non-traditional sources to meet 

projected water supply demands.[48] FCG member utilities are increasingly looking toward treated domestic 

wastewater as a source of service water. 

EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria will significantly hamper efforts by municipalities with publicly owned treatment 

works to increase reuse and as well as corresponding initiatives by industry to accept reuse water for its processes, 

because domestic wastewater cannot achieve EPA's proposed NNC criteria. Many times, for industry to reuse this 

effluent, it must be treated to achieve appropriate water quality for its intended use. These reuse and treatment 

processes often require a back-up surface water discharges and EPA's proposed criteria will make this unperrnittable 

and force industry to install deep-well injection, a costly and imperfect disposal method that is often times impossible 

given constraints of the geology of the well and the condition of the injectate. 

Reuse of treated domestic wastewater in Florida is an essential component of many water supply strategies and is a big 

win for the environment, both with respect to water supply and water quality in that the end result is an overall net 

reduction in nutrient loading to receiving water bodies. EPA's proposed NNC represent a significant setback to this 

important program in Florida. 

[45] Groundwater withdrawals are presently capped by the three water management districts sharing jurisdiction over 

the "Central Florida Coordination," because the districts have concluded that "sustainable quantities of groundwater in 

central Florida are insufficient to meet all future public water supply demands and that there is an immediate need to 

develop and implement supplemental water supply projects." Central Florida Coordination Area, Overview, 

http://cfcawater.com. See also http://www.swfwmd.state.tl.us/projects/cfca/; 

https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portaUp~grp_sfwmd_watersupply/p~sfwmd_watersupply_centraltlcoo rd; and 

http://cfcawater.com/. 

[46] The Southwest Florida Water Management District has established the "Southern Water Use Caution Area" in a 

region of Southwest Florida where the District has concluded that water resources will become critical over the next 

twenty years. See SWFWMD, SWUCA, at http://www.swfwmd.state.t1.us/waterman/swuca/. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1979
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

[47] See discussion infra regarding Ocean Outfalls legislation. 

[48] SRJWMD, 2005 District Water Supply Plan, Fourth Addendum, 6 (May 12,2(09) ("SJRWMD has estimated that 200 

million gallons per day (mgd) of alternative water supplies or a reduction in demand through water conservation and 

increased use of reclaimed water (see subsection titled Replacement of Potable Water Supply Use) would have to be 

implemented to meet the projected water demands identified in Water Supply Assessment 2003 (WSA 2003) without 

resultant unacceptable impacts to water resources and related natural systems."), available at 

http://sjr.state.t1.us/technicalreports/pdfsITP/SJ2006-2Addendum4.pdf; SWFWMD, 2005 Regional Water Supply Plan 

124 (Dec. 2005) ("Reclaimed water, if used effectively and efficiently, has great potential to help meet the 2025 water 

supply demand."), available at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/plansIRWSP/rwsp.pdf; NWFWMD, 2008 

Region III Regional Water Supply Plan, 9 (Aug. 2008) ("Reuse of treated wastewater and stormwater also comprises a 

strategy that holds promise for both reducing near term and managing long-term water demand.") available at 

http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/rmd/watecsupply_planninglRegion%20III%20RWSP_08-1208% 

20FINALweb%20version.pdf; SFWMD, Below the Surface: An In-depth Look at Water Reuse: A Safe and Effective Way 

to Save Water (2005), available at http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/pls/portalldocs/15246931.PDF. 

Comment ID 1462-1.001.012 

Author Name: Helfrich C. 

Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services 

Thirdly, I would like to share with you the potential direct impacts the proposed numeric nutrient criteria data will have 

on the City of Boca Raton's Utility Services Department and our customers. 

Realizing that the amount of traditional water sources available for future growth in south Florida were inadequate and 

in order to protect the regional water supply and prevent future depletions of that supply, in 2006, the South Florida 

Water Management District (SFWMD) enacted the Regional Availability Rule which placed limits on or "capped" the 

amount of water that could be withdrawn from the Biscayne Aquifer, the traditional regional drinking water supply. 

Additional water to supply the needs of residents in south Florida would have to come from alternative water supplies, 

including the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water. 

Comment ID 1462-1.001.013 

Author Name: Helfrich C. 

Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services 

In January of 2005, in long-term planning for future growth and water supply needs, the City completed the construction 

of a $64 million, 40 million gallon a day membrane softening facility that was operationally designed to treat water from 

the Biscayne Aquifer. This state-of-the-art facility supplements the City's existing 30 million gallon a day lime softening 

treatment plant. Because the City had invested and obtained 30-year bond funding for the membrane softening plant 

construction, and the SFWMD 2006 rulemaking, it was determined that additional water supplies to meet expected 

growth would result from the offset of withdrawals on the traditional regional drinking water supply through the beneficial 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1980
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

reuse of reclaimed water. 

Subsequently on June 30, 2008, SB 1302, also known as the "Ocean Outfall Bill", was signed in to law. This law placed 

requirements on five utilities in south Florida who serve over 6 million residents and comprise of ~40% of the total 

effluent in Florida, that utilized ocean outfalls as a means of treated effluent disposal. One requirement imposed by this 

legislation is the reuse of 60% of the reclaimed water. 

An effective and environmentally sound way to meet both the SFWMD and statutory requirements above, many utilities, 

including the City of Boca Raton, embarked on ambitious efforts to implement, expand, and maximize the beneficial 

reuse of reclaimed water. In consideration for the impacts on our rate payers, the City of Boca Raton developed a costeffective strategy to provide reclaimed water to large water users such as golf courses, many of which utilized 

stormwater retainment ponds supplemented with ground water for irrigation. In four years, the City has or will embark 

on over $25 million worth of reclaimed water projects which include the expansion of the existing reclaimed water 

treatment facility from 10 mgd to 17.5 mgd, the construction of a 5 mg off-site reclaimed water storage tank, and the 

expansion of the reclaimed water distribution system to four golf courses and other areas. 

The costs associated with the wastewater treatment upgrades necessary to meet the proposed numeric nutrient criteria 

will prohibit the practice of utilizing the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water, thus rendering the recent $25 million 

invested in the City's reclaimed water facilities useless. If the City is unable to utilize the beneficial reuse of reclaimed 

water to offset withdrawals on the traditional regional drinking water supply, the City will then be forced to invest monies 

in alternative treatment technologies and facilities thus rendering the $64 million investing in the membrane softening 

facility useless. 

Comment ID 1462-1.001.014 

Author Name: Helfrich C. 

Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services 

Therefore, the proposed numeric nutrient criteria standards and the exorbitant costs to meet those standards, with 

dubious environmental impact, have the potential to curtail the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water significantly crippling 

the water supply needs of Floridians. 

Comment ID 1464-2.001.021 

Author Name: Ettinger A. 

Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. 

Additional criteria should be developed in the future to protect the designated use of potable water sources - To refine 

the standards in the future, U.S. EPA or FDEP should develop additional criteria to protect lake potable water sources 

that are known to be prone to increased algal and/or cyanobacteria blooms, including potentially toxic species that can 

cause disease in humans and beneficial aquatic life. Many toxic cyanobacteria thrive in nutrient over-enriched waters, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1981
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

and tend to produce more toxin under nutrient-enriched conditions (Burkholder 2002, 2009, and references therein). 

Burns (2007) described cyanobacterial blooms as common, for example, in much of peninsular Florida where water 

bodies are influenced by underlying phosphate deposits. Toxic cyanobacterial blooms in Florida waters - including 

lakes, slowly flowing rivers, and clear streams and springs - represent "a major threat to water quality, ecosystem 

stability, surface drinking water supplies, and public health" (Burns 2007, p.127). In addition, many of Florida's most 

important potable water supply lakes and rivers have increasingly been affected by toxic cyanobacterial blooms, such 

as the St. Johns River (Williams et al. 2001), Lake Okeechobee (Havens et al. 1996, South Florida Water Management 

District [SFWMD] 2007), and the Harris Chain of Lakes (Burns 2007). 

Cyanobacteria and their toxins have been related to human health impacts in Florida and death of livestock (Burns 

2007 and references therein). Waters that have been described as sustaining extensive toxic cyanobacterial blooms 

have included Lake Okeechobee, the Harris Chain of Lakes, the lower St. Johns River, the Caloosahatchee River, Lake 

Seminole, Lake George, Crescent Lake, Doctors Lake, and the St. Lucie River. These blooms have included toxic 

species from the genera Microcystis, Cylindrospermopsis, Anabaena, Planktothrix, Aphanizomenon, and Lyngbya 

(Plectonema) (Burns 2007). Cyanobacterial blooms have been described as common throughout the state. During one 

survey, microcystin cyanotoxins ranged from below detection levels to 12.5 ug/L in finished drinking water (Burns 2007). 

For comparison, the World Health Organization (2003) recommends a concentration of 1 ug microcystin-LR/L or less in 

drinking water to protect human health. 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.005 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District 

On page 36 EPA states that this rule is to apply to "predominantly fresh waters" as defined as "surface waters in which 

chloride concentration at the surface is less than 1,500 milligrams per liter...." While this definition is quite clear, it does 

not address how application of the numeric criteria might be affected by temporal variability in chloride concentrations. 

For example, in the relatively unregulated Loxahatchee River chloride concentrations can vary significantly at a given 

water quality monitoring station depending on the stage of the tide (e.g., high tide versus low tide) as well as the amount 

of freshwater flowing downstream (e.g., wet season versus dry season, but also immediately following rains versus after 

a prolonged dry period). In fact, it is possible to have a station that has about half of the annual samples defined as 

freshwater and the remaining samples that do not meet the freshwater definition. For example see daily salinity 

conditions in the Loxahatchee River at the mouth of Kitching Creek (river mile 8.2) as illustrated in the graph provided 

below. Similarly, during extreme discharge events freshwater may reach all the way to the inlet (e.g., river mile 0), while 

during protracted dry periods saline water may reach ten miles upstream. EPA must define how such temporal/spatial 

variability will be addressed in the context of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

Original comment letter contains additional information for rivers on page 2 in a graph displaying salinity for the 

Loxahatchee River over time. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1982
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.011 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District 

LRD's water quality data show nutrient concentrations in reuse (reclaimed) water typically exceeded the numeric 

nutrient criteria established by the EPA. For example, during the period 2000-2009, LRD's reuse water contained 

significant concentrations of total nitrogen (18.7-25.2 mg-N/L) and total phosphorus (0.2-3.3 mg-P/L), shown as the 

minimum and maximum annual geometric means observed during the period 2000 through 2009. Total nitrogen 

concentrations, expressed as maximum annual geometric mean, decreased as reuse water moved from the wastewater 

treatment plant effluent (25.2 mg-N/L) to the on-site reuse storage lake (16.8 mg- N/L) to the off-site reuse/stormwater 

storage lake (8.7 mg-N/L), and ultimately the downstream canal (1.7 mg-N/L). Total phosphorus concentrations, 

expressed as maximum annual geometric mean, showed a similar pattern decreasing from the wastewater treatment 

plant effluent (3.4 mg- P/L) to the on-site reuse storage lake (2.1 mg-P/L) to the off-site reuse/stormwater storage lake 

(1.7 mg-P/L), and ultimately the downstream canal (0.2 mg-P/L). These water quality data clearly show decreasing 

concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus as water moves from the wastewater treatment facility, through 

multiple storage ponds, blends with stormwater, and ultimately out to the downstream canal. One interpretation of these 

data is that the system has significant assimilative capacity. For example, reuse water leaving the treatment facility 

exceeded the numeric nutrient criteria for both nitrogen and phosphorus during each of the 10 years of data we 

reviewed; however, in the downstream canal the phosphorus criteria was only exceeded once in ten years while the 

nitrogen criteria was exceeded four times in ten years. 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.012 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District 

Please carefully revise your definition of "lakes and flowing waters" to exclude lakes and flowing waters within surface 

water management systems pursuant to Florida Statute 373.412. Specifically, lakes, flowing waters, and canals 

upstream of a manmade water control structure should be identified as not subject to this proposed rule. Furthermore, 

the LRD requests that the EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection continue to use both mixing 

zones and zones of discharge to effectively manage potential downstream nutrient impacts. 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.013 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District 

Since 1984, the LRD has treated and disbursed more than 33 billion gallons of reclaimed wastewater, used to irrigate 

thirteen locations including golf courses and a large, mixed use community with schools, public parks, a stadium, and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1983
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

4,000 residences. Prior to and following the addition of a site to the LRD reuse system, groundwater quality was 

monitored on a quarterly basis at a background well and up to three compliance wells. A comprehensive analysis of 

more than 13,000 groundwater data points collected at our reuse sites during the period 1984 through 2006 showed 

irrigation with reuse water had no system-wide, negative effect on any of the monitored water quality parameters 

(Arrington and Dent 2008). These findings demonstrate that groundwater quality was maintained through more than 20 

years of irrigation with reclaimed water. 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.014 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District 

If reuse of reclaimed water is not exempted from EPA's numeric nutrient criteria (or if mixing zones and zones of 

discharge are not effectively used to promote the beneficial use of reclaimed water) then water reuse programs will only 

be possible if wastewater treatment facilities design, construct, and operate nutrient removal facilities at a huge 

expense (see Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida - though Carollo Engineers believe the true cost estimate is significantly higher than 

EPA has proposed). In either case, nutrient removal is an expensive exercise in terms of cash, energy, and greenhouse 

gasses produced. We suggest removing nutrients from water destined for landscape irrigation is counterproductive in 

today's ‘green' economy. Presently, nutrients in reclaimed water offset the fertilizer demand (i.e., one pound of nitrogen 

in reclaimed water offsets the need for one pound of nitrogen in fertilizer). If nitrogen and phosphorus must be removed 

from reclaimed water before it is deemed suitable for application as landscape irrigation water, then wastewater 

treatment facilities will have to generate significant energy (think unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions) to remove 

these nutrients while the golf courses will have to increase the amount of fertilizer they apply, which means more 

fertilizer mining must occur (think additional, unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions). Regulations that necessitate 

nutrient removal for reuse (reclaimed) water to be deemed suitable for landscape irrigation would result in reuse 

programs becoming unsustainable (i.e., economic and environmental costs would far outweigh the potential benefit). 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.015 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District 

Forcing reuse (reclaimed) water to meet EPA's numeric nutrient criteria will significantly increase the cost of producing 

reuse water, and will result in wastewater treatment facilities with a permitted deep injection well preferentially disposing 

of treated effluent down their deep injection wells rather than beneficially reusing reclaimed water for landscape 

irrigation projects. This would be a horrible unintended consequence of EPA's numeric nutrient criteria. The chart below 

shows the cumulative number of days (per year) that the minimum flow (35 cubic feet per second) was not delivered to 

the nationally designated wild and scenic Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. When the minimum flow is violated 

(e.g., flow over Lainhart Dam < 35 cubic feet per second) the river experiences ‘significant harm' (see Florida 

Administrative Rule 40E-8.221). In fact, most local agencies believe the most persistent and significant threat to the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1984
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Loxahatchee River is saltwater encroachment resulting from too little freshwater flowing over Lainhart Dam (Orem et al. 

2007). In order to partially remedy this persistent threat to the Loxahatchee River, in 1984 the Loxahatchee River 

District began using reclaimed water for landscape irrigation at local golf courses. Today this project has recycled over 

33 billion gallons of water, which is roughly equivalent to saving 33 billion gallons of water for the natural environment. 

This innovative water recycling program lowers the demands on natural freshwater resources and preserves untapped 

waters to help meet the needs of the Loxahatchee River. If reuse (reclaimed) water must meet the numeric nutrient 

criteria, it will simply be much more cost 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the chart on page 6 of the pdf regarding Number of Days 

Minimum Flow Target Not Met (flow over Lainhart Dam < 35 cfs). See original comment letter. 

effective to turn off LRD's reuse pumps and turn on LRD's deep injection well pumps. Therefore, if reuse is not 

exempted from meeting the numeric nutrient criteria, EPA's numeric nutrient criteria will function as a significant 

deterrent to environmentally beneficial water recycling projects because it will be infinitely cheaper to dispose of 

reclaimed water through deep injection well rather than constructing and operating nutrient removal facilities so that 

reuse water meets EPA's numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.016 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District 

Florida governmental agencies at the state, regional, and local levels, have developed legislation and provided millions 

of dollars in funding to encourage the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water. Wastewater treatment facilities have been 

working diligently to optimize reuse systems (sensu McKim et al 2009) in order to maximize the benefits of reuse (i.e., 

conserving potable water for highest and best use, stretching overall water supplies, delaying implementation of more 

costly alternative water supply projects). Unfortunately, application of EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria to reuse 

water will result in a minimization of reuse programs as reuse purveyors seek to minimize capital and operational cost 

exposure. 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.019 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District 

We applaud the EPA and Florida's Department of Environmental Protection for their efforts to protect aquatic life; 

however, it appears that the proposed numeric nutrient criteria will likely significantly constrain reuse opportunities, 

which would ultimately harm aquatic environments - clearly an unfortunate, unintended consequence. Therefore, the 

LRD recommends the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Florida's Department of Environmental Protection 

exclude reuse water from Numeric Nutrient Criteria. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1985
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1476-2.001.016 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

C. Effects on Water Supply Reuse Programs and Projects 

Although the District does not directly operate or regulate water reuse, it has actively promoted, encouraged, and 

funded water reuse programs. The District is concerned that the proposed criteria may impact the ability of local 

wastewater utilities to provide reclaimed water - and it may have a ripple effect throughout the water management 

activities in the District. Reclaimed water has been a valuable resource in meeting existing water needs and is critical to 

meet future water needs. Currently, almost 240 million gallons per day of previously wasted water is being reused in the 

District. 

In response to the state objectives in Sections 373.250 and 403.064, Florida Statutes, of "encouraging and promoting 

reuse," the State of Florida has developed a comprehensive reuse program. The Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP) has created extensive rules dealing with water reuse which are contained in Chapter 62-610, F.A.C. 

Water reuse involves taking domestic wastewater, giving it a high degree of treatment, and using the resulting highquality reclaimed water for a new, beneficial purpose. Extensive treatment and disinfection ensure that public health 

and environmental quality are protected. 

Florida Statutes state, "A water management district may require the use of reclaimed water in lieu of surface water or 

groundwater when the use of uncommitted reclaimed water is environmentally, economically, and technically feasible 

and of such quality and reliability as is necessary to the user." Fla. Stat. § 373.250. Additionally, "The South Florida 

Water Management District shall require the use of reclaimed water made available by the elimination of wastewater 

ocean outfall discharges ... in lieu of surface water or groundwater when the use of uncommitted reclaimed water is 

environmentally, economically, and technically feasible and of such quality and reliability as is necessary to the user. 

This legislation directed that each domestic wastewater facility that discharges through an ocean outfall shall install a 

functioning reuse system no later than December 31, 2025." Fla. Stat. § 403.086. 

The District is concerned that the proposed criteria will trigger violations related to water reuse, causing local 

wastewater utilities to abandon or reduce the practice - thus eliminating or reducing the reuse of a beneficial, freshwater resource. As an example, consider a south Florida wastewater utility that has invested to upgrade its facilities so 

it can produce reclaimed water. As in many cases in south Florida, the utility delivers its reclaimed water to a stormwater pond at a local golf course. The golf course, in turn, uses the combination storm-water/reclaimed water pond for 

irrigation of the golf course and, in some cases, residences. The pond is connected for flood protection purposes to the 

regional drainage canal. As a result of the proposed criteria for canals, the utility might be in violation of its NPDES 

municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit. If so, the utility either pays for costly upgrades to its treatment 

facility to meet the criteria, or it chooses to dispose of the reclaimed water in a deep injection well previously used as a 

backup. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1986
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Other main concerns with the numeric nutrient criteria on reuse programs include: 

• Reclaimed water is a valuable, fresh-water resource (i.e., water management tool) for the District. As a water 

management agency, the use of reclaimed water is essential to reducing the dependence on limited fresh-water 

sources, such as groundwater and surface water. If water reuse declines as a result of the proposed criteria, stress on 

these limited resources would increase. 

• Any reduction in existing or projected water reuse would result in unmet water needs, and increased additional 

investment in costly alternative water supplies would be required, if available. 

• Effluent disposal, in lieu of reuse, would increase (e.g., deep-well injection) 

• For those utilities that decide to continue a water reuse program, wastewater treatment costs will dramatically 

increase. Such cost increases, ultimately to be borne by the rate payer, may not be economically or politically feasible 

and reduce water reuse in the future. 

• Those utilities that are required by State legislation to reuse a minimum 60% of their ocean discharge (Ocean Outfall 

Legislation, Chapter 2008-232) might be severely handicapped in their ability to meet those requirements. 

• The proposed criteria could affect the availability and timing of water in environmentally-sensitive areas. The loss of 

reclaimed water might adversely affect water reservations that the District is developing to secure the long-term 

availability of water for thousands of fish and wildlife species throughout the region. The effect may come directly from 

disposal instead of reuse (e.g., deep-injection wells) or indirectly by increasing groundwater and surface water 

withdrawals to substitute for the loss of reclaimed water. Those additional groundwater and surface water allocations 

may be in direct competition with the environmental needs. • The proposed criteria could limit or eliminate the use of 

Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) technology as a component in the federally-partnered Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan (CERP). Currently, the District and U.S. Corps of Engineers have NPDES permits for their ASR pilot 

projects that allow them to return water back to its regional source (e.g., canal). The proposed criteria have the potential 

to adversely impact those permits and therefore ASR technology, which is a vital component to restoring America's 

Everglades. 

Comment ID 1479-1.001.005 

Author Name: Reynolds J. 

Organization: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 

Reclaimed Water & Compliance with Water Use Permits - FKAA is also concerned about the competing policy 

objectives of using reclaimed water and the ability to meet the proposed NNC. While this issue is more likely to impact 

us with Phase II of the rule (for coastal and marine systems), it is important 10 raise our concern now so the issue can 

be clarified. FKAA is required to utilize reclaimed water as a source for landscape irrigation through conditions in our 

consumptive use permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District (Permit No. 13OOOOS- W).[1] From a 

policy perspective at the state and federal levels, use of reclaimed water is encouraged and reuse of water reduces the 

need for freshwater sources. EPA's Guidelines for Water Reuse (2004) even states: "Water reclamation and reuse offer 

an effective means of conserving our limited high-quality freshwater supplies while helping to meet the ever growing 

demands for water," In 2006, EPA estimated that more than 1.7 billion gallons of wastewater were reused per day with 

the state of Florida reusing an average of more than 500 million gallons per day. An example of this policy objective at 

the state level can be found in the South Florida Water Management District's permitting criteria [2] and Basis of Review 

for Water Use Permit Applications [3]. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1987
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

[1] Reclaimed water is used at Key West Resort Golf Course, Caloosa Cove. Holiday Inn on Key Largo. Breezy Palms. 

Hawks Cay. Key Colony Beach and expanded reclaimed service at Big Coppit Key Service Area Reclaimed System. 

Duck Key Service Area Reclaimed System, Cudjoe/Summerland/Upper Sugarloaf Keys Service Area Reclaimed 

System. 

[2] Rule 40E-20-301. FAC. and Rule 40E-2.301, F.A.C. 

[3] Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Application, 3.2.3.2 Reuse Requirements 

Comment ID 1479-1.001.010 

Author Name: Reynolds J. 

Organization: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 

The need to achieve this "balance" is also demonstrated by the fact that even though the drinking water provided in the 

County meets all drinking water standards, the concentration of phosphorus in that drinking water (>0.2 mg/I) exceeds 

the proposed Phase I criteria for lakes, springs, and canals (0.01-0.05 mg/I) in EPA's rule. Simply put, even if FKAA's 

drinking water were used as an irrigation source (in lieu of reclaimed water), it would require more treatment and cost to 

meet the requirements contemplated in EPA's rule. The need for resource protection (through reduced withdrawals by 

reuse of water and protection of the water quality in groundwater resources) must be in parity with the ability to achieve 

a reasonable standard. It does not appear as though the standards in Phase I achieve that balance yet and FKAA is 

concerned that this will also be the case with Phase II. 

Comment ID 1482-1.001.011 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

F. Need for Criteria for outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National 

Resource Waters. 

Outstanding Florida waters and other sensitive waters may require additional criteria in the future - U.S. EPA or FDEP 

should develop criteria in the future to protect outstanding waters and other sensitive waters. Florida has designated 

Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters, including Class I and Class Ill waters, which 

are to be afforded "the highest protection" from degradation (FDEP 2008, pp. 10, 34). U.S. EPA or FDEP should 

determine whether additional criteria are needed to protect these waters. 

Comment ID 1482-1.001.028 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1988
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

IX. The Nutrient Criteria Would Not Apply to Waters Within Stormwater 

Management Systems 

Concerns have been expressed that the proposed numeric nutrient criteria would apply to stormwater ponds or directly 

to their discharges. These concerns have no basis in Florida law or the Clean Water Act. First, Fla. Stat. § 373.4142 

explicitly states that "[state surface water quality standards applicable to waters of the state, as defined in s. 

403.031(13), shall not apply within a stormwater management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and 

maintained for stormwater treatment in accordance with a valid permit or noticed exemption ..." Second, in general, 

water quality standards under the Clean Water apply to water quality in receiving waters, not to discharges into 

receiving waters. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1313. In addition, Fla. Stat. § 403.061(10) and (1 1) provide FDEP with the 

authority to classify "waters" and to establish water quality standards for waters. "Waters" are defined in Fla. Stat. § 

403.031 to clearly include ambient waters. 

Comment ID 1482-1.001.045 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

The 2/15/10 draft rule did not correct the failure to provide a higher classification for pristine or sensitive waters. One of 

the initial stated purposes of the water quality reclassification rule was to provide the opportunity for higher 

classifications of waterbodies that would have more protective criteria than the current Class Ill criteria. The upgrading 

opportunity in the current proposed amendments to the rule is no greater than provided in the existing rule. 

The changes to the water quality classification rule should also include a higher classification for pristine or sensitive 

waterbodies that currently are much cleaner than Class Ill criteria or need more stringent criteria to protect sensitive 

aquatic species. Outstanding Florida Waters, because it only affords antidegradation protection based on the water 

quality at the time of designation, and lacks ongoing mandatory monitoring and enforcement provisions, is not effective 

at providing the additional protection that many sensitive waters need. At the very least, this "pristine or sensitive" 

classification would provide the opportunity for DEP to upgrade, as required by 40 C.F.R. !j 131.10(i), when it finds that 

high-quality waters are currently attaining a higher aquatic life use than Class Ill. 

Comment ID 1530.001.018 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

II. SPECIFIC EXEMPTION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE RULE FOR APRICOT ACT DISCHARGES 

The Proposed Rule should provide for an exemption for discharges permitted under Florida's APRICOT Act. The 

Proposed Rule's failure to provide an exemption for discharges under Florida's APRICOT Act will discourage water 

reuse by placing an unreasonable financial burden on discharges that are currently protected under the APRICOT Act, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1989
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

result in potential significant negative impacts to Florida's environment, and result in the needless expenditure of funds 

(both public and private). Certainly, the detrimental effect of discouraging water reuse far outweighs whatever water 

quality benefit (if any) that may occur by submitting APRICOT Act discharges to regulation by the Proposed Rule. 

Accordingly, the Proposed Rule should provide for a specific exemption from meeting the criteria proposed therein for 

discharges under Florida's APRICOT Act for the following reasons (which do not necessarily constitute the universe of 

reasons for such an exemption): 

A. The promotion and encouragement of water reuse is a formal objective for the state of Florida, and a specific law has 

been enacted which defines discharges from reuse facilities as "environmentally acceptable." 

B. CCUA APRICOT Act discharges have a negligible impact on water quality. 

C. The Proposed Rule provides the potential for discouraging water reuse, by placing an unreasonable financial burden 

on discharges that are currently protected under the APRICOT Act. 

D. APRICOT Act facilities discharge forms of nitrogen that are significantly less likely to support algal growth than other 

sources of nitrogen. 

E. The environmental conditions that typically occur during periods of APRICOT Act discharge are less susceptible to 

nutrient impairment. 

For all of these reasons and in order to improve the Proposed Rule, CCUA proposes that Section 131.43(c) be 

amended to include a subparagraph (8) which reads: 

(8) Florida APRICOT Act Discharges. Any facility that discharges under Florida's APRICOT Act of 1994 may continue to 

discharge its permitted discharges so long as such facility's discharges are consistent with the APRICOT Act of 1994. 

A. The Promotion and Encouragement of Water Reuse Is a Formal Objective for the State of Florida, and a Specific 

Law has Been Enacted which Defines Discharges from Reuse Facilities as "Environmentally Acceptable". 

The APRICOT Act of 1994 was enacted by the Florida Legislature to promote water reuse, and allows for the permitting 

of backup discharges to surface waters for reuse systems when the utility meets certain requirements. More 

specifically, section 403.064 of the Florida Statues reads: 

The encouragement and promotion of water conservation, and reuse of reclaimed water, as defined by the 

department,[2] are state objectives and are considered to be in the public interest. The Legislature finds that the reuse 

of reclaimed water is a critical component of meeting the state's existing and future water supply needs while sustaining 

natural systems. The Legislature further finds that for those wastewater treatment plants permitted and operated under 

an approved reuse program by the department, the reclaimed water shall be considered environmentally acceptable 

and not a threat to public health and safety. The Legislature encourages the development of incentive-based programs 

for reuse implementation. (emphasis supplied). 

The language of the APRICOT Act makes clear that Florida explicitly recognizes the benefits of water reuse and, 

furthermore, has determined discharges from reuse facilities to be "environmentally acceptable". The Proposed Rule 

will expressly override this determination of the Florida Legislature, a determination that has been "on the books" since 

the mid-1990's and has survived several triennial reviews of Florida's water bodies. Indeed, only after the EPA agreed 

to settle a lawsuit, is the Florida Legislature's determination regarding these discharges being completely undermined 

by the Proposed Rule in contravention of the CWA's deference to state primacy on this issue. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1990
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The APRICOT Act requires the provision of AWT (defined to include TN concentrations of 3 mg/L and TP 

concentrations of 1 mg/L). The quantity of water allowed to be discharged from these facilities is limited to thirty percent 

of their permitted reuse capacity on an armual basis. As demonstrated below, these restrictions result in a negligible 

impact on instream nutrient concentrations. 

B. CCUA APRICOT Act Discharges Have a Negligible Impact on Water Quality. 

At CCUA's request, LimnoTech performed a water quality assessment of the APRICOT Act discharges from the two 

plants operated by CCUA that will be subject to the Proposed Rule. [3] This analysis demonstrates that these 

discharges neither cause nor substantially contribute to the exceedance of the criteria in the Proposed Rule. 

As part of its analysis, LinmoTech conducted water quality modeling analyses that confirms the negligible impact that 

CCUA's APRICOT Act discharges have on water quality. This analysis, documented in further detail in LimnoTech's 

memorandum found at Appendix K, considers APRICOT Act discharges from two facilities operated by CCUA that each 

discharge to small streams which would fall within the purview of the Proposed Rule. The analysis demonstrates that 

neither of these discharges is calculated to cause an exceedance of the Instream 

Protection Values contained in the Proposed Rule for either TN or TP. Background concentrations upstream of each of 

the treatment facilities currently exceed the Downstream Protection Value for nitrogen that were discussed in the 

preamble to the Proposed Rule. Model results indicate that these two APRICOT Act discharges increase the annual 

average TN concentration of their local receiving waters by only 0.2 to 1.0% under existing discharge conditions. The 

reasons for this negligible impact are threefold: 

1. APRICOT Act requirements mandate a level of treatment that is similar in quality to the criteria in the Proposed Rule; 

2. APRICOT Act discharges occur primarily during wet weather, when even low-flow streams carry sufficient flow to 

provide substantial dilution; and 

3. The type of averaging used for the criteria in the Proposed Rule (annual geometric mean) minimizes the effect of 

intermittent discharges on the calculated average in-stream concentrations. 

Because the discharges examined for this example occur on relatively low-flow tributaries, they are expected to 

represent an upper-end estimate of potential nutrient impacts from APRICOT Act discharges. If the impact of APRICOT 

Act discharges on small streams is demonstrated to be negligible, it can be concluded that similar discharges to other 

systems will most likely have negligible water quality impacts as well. 

The draft TMDL prepared by EPA (2009) for the receiving water of the two CCUA APRICOT Act discharges reached 

the identical conclusion that these high quality effluents were not contributing to an existing nutrient impairment: 

Note the point source dischargers have little to no impact on the water quality data that resulted in the impaired listing. 

These two dischargers will be included in the WASP water quality model at their advance wastewater treatment permits 

limits. (Appendix A, p. 8) 

The proposed TMDL, while requiring reductions in nutrient loads from other sources in the watershed, left the allowable 

loading from CCUA's APRICOT Act discharges unchanged. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1991
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

C. The Proposed Rule Provides the Potential for Discouraging Water Reuse, by Placing an Unreasonable Financial 

Burden on Discharges that are Currently Protected Under the APRICOT Act. 

EPA's (2010) estimate of potential compliance costs associated with the proposed rule is based on the assumption that 

municipal discharges must provide treatment to the limits of technology (LOT). The analysis admits, however, that 

treatment to LOT may not result in attainment of proposed criteria for effluent-dominated streams: 

In areas where the LOT is below the criterion, it may be infeasible to meet the criterion instream due to technology 

limitations, especially if the water is dominated by WWTP discharges; for waters with assimilative capacity, requiring 

WWTPs to achieve LOT would not likely affect attainment of the standards assuming other sources are controlled. In 

those cases where it may be technologically infeasible to attain the standards, a use attainability analysis may be 

needed; site-specific modeling would be needed to identify such instances and determine appropriate WQBELs. 

However, in the absence of such modeling, we assumed that all WWTPs would need to treat to criteria-end-of-pipe or 

the LOT, whichever is greater. (p. 4-2) 

The costs to utilities associated with conducting a use attainability analysis (UM), or in providing wastewater treatment 

beyond LOT, are substantial and not reflected in the cost estimate. The cost issues are discussed in greater detail in 

Section IV of this Comment. Utilities faced with deciding between reuse and other wastewater alternatives will be 

dissuaded from reuse if the proposed rules are passed and treatment beyond LOT is required. 

The net environmental impact of water reuse (given current APRlCOT Act restrictions) is a large net positive. EPA's 

Guidelines for Water Reuse (2004) specifically states "Water reclamation and reuse offer an effective means of 

conserving our limited high-quality freshwater supplies while helping to meet the ever growing demands for water." The 

detrimental effect of discouraging water reuse far outweighs whatever water quality benefit (if any) that may occur by 

submitting APRlCOT Act discharges to regulation by the Proposed Rule. 

D. APRlCOT Act Facilities Discharge Forms of Nitrogen That are Significantly Less Likely to Support Algal Growth Than 

Other Sources ofNitrogen. 

Nitrogen can exist in different forms in the aquatic environment. These forms are broadly characterized as inorganic 

nitrogen and organic nitrogen. The inorganic forms of nitrogen, primarily ammonia and nitrate, are the only forms of 

nitrogen that algae can directly use to support their growth. Organic forms of nitrogen cannot be immediately utilized by 

algae. These organic forms can eventually support algal growth as they are converted into inorganic forms, through a 

process called mineralization. The rate at which organic nitrogen mineralizes depends upon the specific organic 

compounds and site-specific environmental conditions. 

APRlCOT Act discharges are required to provide AWT, with maximum allowable TN concentrations of 3 mgIL. The 

wastewater treatment processes required to produce this type of effluent remove the great majority of the inorganic 

nitrogen and highly-reactive organic nitrogen from the water, with much of the remaining nitrogen taking the form of 

slowly degrading dissolved organic material. 

The slowly degrading dissolved organic nitrogen associated with AWT effluent takes a sufficiently long time to degrade, 

so much so that it is commonly delivered to the ocean long before it becomes available for algal growth. The water 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1992
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

quality model developed for the Lower St. Johns Estuary TMDL (Tillman et al, 2009) estimated that slow-reacting 

dissolved organic nitrogen is converted to inorganic nitrogen at a rate of 0.0025 per day. This means that only one 

quarter of one percent of the organic nitrogen is converted to inorganic nitrogen over the course of a day. Even after 

one week's time, 98% of the organic nitrogen discharged by an AWT facility, like CCUA's WWTFs, would still be in the 

organic form and unavailable for algal growth. For CCUA's APRICOT Act discharges, the overwhelming majority of the 

nitrogen CCUA discharges will be unavailable to support algal growth during the time their effluent resides in local 

streams and the Lower St. Johns estuary. This nitrogen will not be converted into an inorganic form and become 

available for algal growth until it has had months to mineralize, which means that the nitrogen from CCUA's discharges 

will not be available to support algal growth until long after it has been discharged into the ocean. 

E. The Enviromnental Conditions That Typically Occur During Periods of APRICOT Act Discharge Are Less Susceptible 

to Nutrient Impairment. 

The APRICOT Act was enacted to encourage water reuse, and allows for the permitting of discharges to surface waters 

from reuse systems during periods of reduced demand for reuse water. These periods of reduced demand for reuse 

water directly correlate to periods of time when nutrient loading to surface waters are least likely to have an 

enviromnental impact, i.e. wet and/or cooler weather conditions. 

Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate that the CCUA APRICOT Act discharges clearly occur primarily during wet weather 

conditions when stream flows are higher than usual, and are therefore capable of providing additional dilution of the 

discharge. Figure 1 shows the average stream flow for the nearest USGS gauging station (Black Creek Station 

#2246025) on days when the Spencer's WWTF was discharging, compared to stream flows on days when there was no 

discharge. Stream flows are five times as large, on average, for days when the Spencer's WWTF discharges than they 

are for days without APRICOT Act discharge. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Average Little Black Creek Flow during Periods of 

Spencer's WWTF Discharge and Non-Discharge. See original comment letter. 

Similar results are shown in Figure 2 for the Ridaught Landing WWTF. In this case, stream flows are more than fifty 

percent larger, on average, for days when the Ridaught Landing WWTF discharges than for days when there are no 

discharges. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. Average Little Black Creek Flow during Periods of 

Ridaught Landing WWTF Discharge and Non-Discharge. See original comment letter. 

In addition to APRlCOT Act discharges occurring primarily during higher stream flow periods, a disproportionately large 

amount of discharge flow from the Ridaught Landing WWTF occurs during cooler weather periods or reduced algal 

growth potential. Figure 3 demonstrates that more than half of the annual CCUA APRlCOT Act discharges from the 

Ridaught Landing WWTF occur during the months of November and December. CCUA discharges are located close 

enough to the mouth of the Lower St. Johns River, such that these nutrients are flushed out of the system to the Atlantic 

Ocean prior to the peak algal growing season. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3. Percentage of Ridaught Landing WWTF Discharge 

Occurring during each Month of the Year. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1993
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The higher-than-average stream dilution occurring during periods of APRlCOT Act discharge, combined with a 

preponderance of the discharge occurring during seasons of lesser algal growth, further mitigate the potential for these 

discharges to contribute to nutrient impairment. 

F. Proposed Changes to Regulatory Language: 

For all of the foregoing reasons, APRlCOT Act discharges should be exempt from the Proposed Rule. More specifically, 

APRlCOT Act discharges result in a 30% reduction in load by definition, and, furthermore, CCUA's discharges, as 

measured on an annual average basis, have been shown to not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the Instream 

Protection Values in the Proposed Rule. Therefore, in order to improve the current Proposed Rule, CCUA proposes the 

following changes to the Proposed Rule: 

Proposed Section 131.43(c) should be amended to include a subparagraph (8) which reads: 

(8) Florida APRICOT Act Discharges. Any facility that discharges under Florida's APRlCOT Act of 1994 may continue to 

discharge its permitted discharges so long as such facility's discharges are consistent with the APRlCOT Act of 1994. 

[2] Section 403.031, Florida Statutes, defines "department" to mean the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. 

[3] The analysis was performed for the Spencer's and Ridaught Landing WWTFs. CCUA's other WWTFs discharge into 

the marine portion of the LSJR and are, therefore, not subject to the Proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1530.001.032 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

VI. IF EPA CHOOSES NOT TO EXEMPT APRICOT ACT DISCHARGES FROM THE PROPOSED RULE OR AMEND 

SECTION 131.43(g) BY ADDING A NEW PARAGRAPH TEN (10), THEN EPA SHOULD EXEMPT CCUA'S APRICOT 

ACT DISCHARGES BECAUSE CCUA HAS SHOWN TRAT THEY DO NOT, AND WILL NOT, CAUSE OR 

CONTIBUTE TO AN EXCEEDANCE OF THE INSTREAM PROTECTION VALUES IN THE PROPOSED RULE. 

CCUA has thoroughly demonstrated that its discharges at Spencer's and Ridaught will not cause or contribute to an 

exceedance of the Instrearn Protection Values in the Proposed Rule. Accordingly, should the EPA determine that it will 

not categorically exempt APRICOT Act discharges, then EPA should exempt CCUA's APRICOT Act discharges from 

compliance with the criteria expressed in the Proposed Rule for the reasons explained above in Section II. 

Comment ID 1530.001.051 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1994
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

CCUA has also demonstrated that its APRICOT Act discharges do not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the 

Instream Protection Values in the Proposed Rule. Specifically, LimnoTech performed a water quality assessment of the 

APRICOT Act discharges from the two plants operated by CCUA that will be subject to the Proposed Rule. This 

assessment firmly establishes the negligible impact that CCUA's discharges, measured on an armual average basis, 

have on water quality. Furthermore, as noted above, due to the treatment process, CCUA's APRICOT Act discharges 

do not contain the type of nitrogen that cause or contribute to algal blooms. Furthermore, the enviromnental conditions 

that occur during periods of APRICOT Act discharges are less susceptible to nutrient impairment. Simply put, CCUA's 

APRICOT Act discharges do NOT have any significant impact on the enviromnent and are protective ofthe designated 

use. 

Moreover, the APRlCOT Act is the affirmative statement of the Florida Legislature in favor of the use of reclaimed 

water. The state of Florida has, as a formal objective, the promotion and encouragement of water reuse. The Proposed 

Rule could set this policy "on its head" without any justification. Notwithstanding, the Proposed Rule currently makes no 

exception for Florida's established policy in favor of promoting reuse. The contrary holds true; the Proposed Rule could 

negatively impact water reuse throughout the state of Florida. 

To avoid this unjust and illogical outcome, CCUA has proposed, in Section II of this Comment, that that Section 

131.43(c) should be amended to include a subparagraph (8) which reads: 

(8) Florida APRICOT Act Discharges. Any facility that discharges under Florida's APRlCOT Act of 1994 may continue to 

discharge its permitted discharges so long as such facility's discharges are consistent with the APRlCOT Act of 1994. 

Comment ID 1550.001.006 

Author Name: Berchtold J. 

Organization: City of Lake Butler 

-In the State of Florida, over 663 million gallons of water is reused each day for beneficial purpose (e.g., for irrigation, 

industrial purposes, ground water recharge, and surface augmentation). Reusing this water treated at over 400 of 

Florida's wastewater treatment plants offsets the use of 360 million gallons per day of potable quality water, and 

recharges 214 million gallons per day into the aquifer. Due to the nutrient constraints of the proposed numeric criteria, 

Florida will be forced to dispose of much of this resource through deep well injection (because it will be cheaper than 

trying to meet the proposed criteria) and develop more expensive potable water sources to make up for the water 

shortage . 

Please carefully consider my thoughts, 

Comment ID 1559.001.006 

Author Name: Bonde J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1995
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Village of Wellington 

-The proposed rule makes no distinction between manmade storm water conveyance canals and natural rivers, lakes 

and streams. 

Comment ID 1617-1.001.005 

Author Name: Ammerman D. 

Organization: Florida Water Environment Association and WateReuse Florida 

It is easy to imagine the proposed EPA rules being used to require utilities to arbitrarily reduce the concentrations of 

nutrients in reclaimed water, even if it is being used as a source of irrigation water with no discharge to surface waters. 

A Florida utility seeking to expand its reuse system must first demonstrate to FDEP that the project will not "cause or 

contribute to violations of water quality standards in surface waters." Rules 62-610.850(1)(a); 610.800(1), F.A.C. 

Because EPA's statistical derivation has resulted in arbitrary and overly-conservative nutrient criteria, environmentally 

beneficial reuse projects will likely be subject to undue regulatory scrutiny in the state permitting process and perhaps 

legal challenge by an advocacy group. We might face a situation where a utility is required to expend their limited funds 

to reduce nutrients in the reclaimed water supply while the end users of this resource are increasing their spending on 

commercial fertilizers. It is our position that reclaimed water should not be presumed to be causing or contributing to 

environmental degradation in cases where nutrient loadings due to irrigation with this source are less than or equal to 

the recommended agronomic rates for the cover crop receiving the water. Such a presumption would provide utilities 

currently engaged in beneficial reuse and those considering such programs assurance that they can continue 

implementing these projects without the need to divert funds to upgrade the treatment processes for nutrient removal. 

Without this assurance we anticipate that many utilities will pursue deep well injection disposal options (if available) or 

similar alternatives rather than face the new permitting complications stemming from EPA's crudely derived nutrient 

criteria. 

These results are directly contrary to the Florida Legislature's determination that "[t]he encouragement and promotion of 

water conservation and reuse of reclaimed water...are state objectives and considered to be in the public interest." § 

373.250(1), F.5. Floridians are relying upon reclaimed water to meet future water demands, and any policies that may 

frustrate the realization of utilizing reclaimed water as a resource must be closely scrutinized, particularly when the 

policy promises only tenuous environmental benefits. EPA has not addressed these negative unintended consequences 

in its proposed rule; however, detailed consideration is necessary prior to finalization of the proposed rule. Specifically, 

EPA should explicitly acknowledge that the use of reclaimed water can lower dependence on fertilizers and thus lower 

overall nutrient loadings to a watershed. 

Comment ID 1617-1.001.006 

Author Name: Ammerman D. 

Organization: Florida Water Environment Association and WateReuse Florida 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1996
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

A second but closely related intersection between the current FDEP reuse rules and the proposed NNC rules deals with 

managing reclaimed water supplies under wet weather conditions. An understanding of these management challenges 

quickly leads one to the realization that periods of low demand, typically under wet weather conditions drives the design 

and permitting of beneficial reuse systems. Further the costs of these wet weather management systems dictate the 

funds remaining for delivering reclaimed water to the end user and the efficiencies (fraction of reclaimed water put to 

beneficial use versus total available supplies) of a given reuse system. Based on our long history of efforts to optimize 

the use of reclaimed water we have found that a mix of storage and limited discharges under low demand conditions 

provide the most favorable strategies. Unfortunately both are threatened by the NNC rules. The use of storage and 

limited wet weather discharge and how they might be impacted by the NNC rules are discussed below. 

Storage 

In most reuse systems the seasonal fluctuations in supplies and demands are inversely correlated to one another. For 

example wastewater flows typically decrease in May and early June in response to low rainfall and warming 

temperatures. Under these same conditions the demands for irrigation increase dramatically. It is seldom cost effective 

to build storage that completely equalizes these seasonal differences. Recognizing this, Florida included language in 

the reuse rule that recognized the fact that combined irrigation/stormwater storage ponds periodically discharge and 

allowed their use for the storage of reclaimed water. The rule language providing this option to reclaimed water utilities 

is contained in Chapter 62-610.830 FAC. 

Limited/Seasonal Discharge 

Following directly from the fact that we cannot develop cost effective storage facilities to completely equalized reclaimed 

water supplies and demands is the need to periodically dispose of excess reclaimed water. Recognizing this fact the 

State has provided two regulatory methods of permitting an intermittent discharge to surface waters in conjunction with 

beneficial reuse, that are contained in 62-610.860 FAC titled "Limited Wet Weather Discharge", and the second is the 

Apricot Act (see Section 403.086(h F.S.). 

It appears that discharges of this nature could not continue under the proposed NNC rules without costly upgrades to 

treatment to achieve the nutrient concentrations stated in the rule. Unfortunately this could result in these facilities 

opting for more disposal oriented approach to effluent management as funds are diverted to higher levels of treatment. 

This is primarily due to the fact that the EPA NNC rules are single mindedly focused on concentration and devoid of 

nutrient loading considerations (and their attendant consequences). We believe the FDEP's limited wet weather rules 

represent a rational approach to both encouraging beneficial reuse and protecting the environment and that EPA should 

include language in the NNC to preserve this permitting strategy for utilities wishing to implement beneficial reuse 

programs. 

Comment ID 1642-1.001.005 

Author Name: Tilton A. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1997
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Water Resources Group on behalf of Johnson Engineering, Inc. 

4. Language is confusing for storm water ponds. In the federal Register of January 26, 2010, the following text is 

provided. 

III. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the Sta te of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters 

A. Genera/Information 

(I) Which Water Bodies Are Affected by This Proposed Rule? The criteria proposed in this rulemaking apply to lakes 

and flowing waters of the State of Florida. EPA' s proposal defines " lakes and flowing waters " to mean inland surface 

waters that have been classified as Class I (Potable Water Supplies) or Class III (Recreation, Propagation and 

Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife) water bodies pursuant to Rule 62-302.400, 

F.A.C., exclud ing wetlands, and which are predominantly fresh waters. Pursuant to Rule 62-302.200, F.A.C., EPA' s 

proposal defines " predominantly fresh waters" to mean surface waters in which the chloride concentration at the 

surface is less than 1,500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and " surface water" means water upon the surface of the Earth, 

whether contained in bounds created naturally, artificially, or diffused. 

The first part of the language would exclude storm water ponds since they are not Class I or Class III waters as used by 

the State of Florida. The language that brings that into question is the "surface water" which means water upon the 

surface of the Earth, whether contained in bounds created naturally, artificially or diffused. A storm water pond could 

easily be described as an artificial body of surface water. 

If storm water ponds are excluded since they are not a classified water body, then there is only a need for clarification in 

the text so that there is no confusion later. Language such as "Storm water ponds are not included" would be sufficient. 

If storm water ponds are included, then the rule will not work and must be redone since the very water bodies designed 

as treatment facilities for the past 25 years will not have to have clean water input rather than being what they were 

designed to be. This would be very wasteful of the resources if this has to be done. 

Will the EPA make such a differentiation? 

Comment ID 1645-1.001.002 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

From a reading of the rule and from statements made in numerous public hearings by the EPA and the public, it can 

only be concluded that DWU will be required to meet the standards for nitrogen and phosphorus proposed in the rule 

and that these must be considered end of pipe limits. It will be impossible to prove that reclaimed water not meeting 

these end of pipe numbers do not contribute to any pollution of nearby water bodies, either through surface water runoff or groundwater movements. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1998
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1645-1.001.006 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

III. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters 

Paragraph A. General Information 

(1) Which Water Bodies are Affected by this Proposed Rule? 

"Pursuant to Rule 62-302.200, F.A.C., EPA 's proposal defines "predominantly fresh waters" to mean surface waters in 

which the chloride concentration at the surface is less than 1,500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and "surface water" means 

water upon the surface ofthe Earth, whether in bounds created naturally, artificially or diffused. " 

This is an extremely broad definition of surface water bodies and could be a particular concern to Destin Water Users 

relative to its application on waterbodies within golf courses and developments that are served by DWU's reclaimed 

water utility. Surface waters such as these receive recharge throu gh the surficial aquifer and direct runoff from 

neighboring areas. In some cases, these water bodies serve as stormwater management basins and receive large 

inputs of stormwater by their design. In fact, their function is to capture and retain nutrients delivered to them with storm 

flows. Consequently, they typically exhibit some level of nutrient enrichment. 

Although discussions with the FDEP Northwest District indicate that the intent of the rule is to exclude these types of 

water bodies. However, strict interpretation of the text does not. It must be concluded from the rule that the proposed 

NNC for lakes would be applied to these water bodies as well as neighboring water bodies to the WWTF. Should this 

occur, application of recla imed water in the recharge areas for these water bodies would not be allowed unless the 

effluent quality met the NNC However, the proposed rule specifically exempts wet lands, which is encouraging. It 

appears that it is recognized that including wetlands would eliminate a potent ially critical tool in overall nutrient reduct 

ion. Concern exists that wetlands discharges to water bodies may not meet the proposed limits in the rule forcing this 

treatment measure to be in jeopardy. 

Comment ID 1667-1.001.002 

Author Name: Gierach D. 

Organization: CPH Engineers, Inc. and the City of Sanford 

Potential Impact on Sanford Reclaimed Water System 

The City of Sanford owns and operates two wastewater treatment plants, Sanford North Water Reclamation Facility 

(SNWRF) and Sanford South Water Resources Center (SSWRC). The SNWRF is a "secondary treatment plus filtration" 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-1999
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

facility utilizing the activated sludge process and meets all Class I Reliability criteria. The SNWRF is operated under 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit No. FL0020141 with an annual average daily flow 

(AADF) capacity of 7.3 MGD. 

The SSWRC is also classified as a "secondary treatment plus filtration" facility utilizing the dual oxidation ditch activated 

sludge process (BIODENITRO) and meets all Class I reliability criteria. The activated sludge system is designed to 

simultaneously nitrify and denitrify within the oxidation ditches that operate in "series", utilize rotors for aeration and 

submersible mixers for mixing during periods of anoxic operation. The SSWRC is operated under FDEP permit No. 

FLA181714 with an AADF capacity of 2.0 MGD. 

Both facilities produce reclaimed water that meets the standards for irrigation of public accessible areas, such as golf 

course, residential area, and parks, etc. During wet weather when the demand for reclaimed water decreases, it is 

permitted to discharge up to 1.0 MGD, AADF to the St. Johns River. According to the EPA defined stream regions in 

Figure 1, the discharge point is in the region of Peninsula which requires a TN of 1.205 mg/L and TP of 0.107 mg/L. The 

average 2009 TN of the Sanford reclaimed water was 8.18 mg/L and the TP is 1.3 mg/L, which are far higher than the 

EPA proposed numeric criteria. In order to meet the EPA proposed nutrient criteria, additional treatment may be 

required at the two plants. 

Not only the City's wet weather discharge to the St. Johns River cannot meet the proposed standards, but the reuse of 

reclaimed water may be limited or even eliminated. The reuse of reclaimed water may be an issue for the City as it is 

uncertain how the reclaimed water will contribute to the nutrient discharges after irrigation. The City has greatly reduced 

nutrient loading to the surface water by reusing the reclaimed water over the past twenty (20) years. The City's 

reclaimed water is treated to the appropriate level for irrigation. Nutrient is essential for the plant that is irrigated. If the 

City has to treat the reclaimed water to meet the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, the customer may have to increase 

the fertilizer usage. The nutrient contribution to the surface water by fertilizer through runoff or other natural means 

might even be higher than the reclaimed water itself. EPA's proposed numeric rule should have considered the nutrient 

need of the reclaimed water for irrigation purposes. 

Comment ID 1712-1.001.003 

Author Name: Temple A. 

Organization: B&W Quality Growers, Inc. 

Like any other farming operations land and water are two of the most important resources for us. Being the world's 

largest single watercress producer, we understand the importance of clean water. Over the years we have implemented 

systems and procedures not only to conserve but to maintain the quality of water. We have in place BMP and Global 

Gap systems which are regularly reviewed and updated. We are farming under a permit from the St. Johns River Water 

Management District, and work with the guidelines set by the FDEP. 

Our BMPs include reuse of the irrigation waters. If we will have to make changes to the existing systems, it would 

negate the thousands of dollar investment which we have already made to comply with current requirements. 

Furthermore it would cause additional financial burden on us. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2000
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1729.001.017 

Author Name: Fugett A. 

Organization: 

21. In the State of Florida, over 663 million gallons of water is reused each day for a beneficial purpose (e.g., for 

irrigation, industrial purposes, ground water recharge, and surface water augmentation). Reusing this water treated at 

over 400 of Florida's wastewater treatment plants offsets the use of 360 million gallons per day of potable quality water, 

and recharges 214 million gallons per day into the aquifer. Due to the nutrient constraints of the proposed numeric 

criteria, Florida will be forced to dispose of much of this resource through deep well injection (because it will be cheaper 

than trying to meet the proposed criteria) and develop more expensive potable water sources to make up for the water 

shortage. 

Comment ID 1731-1.001.007 

Author Name: Gibson T. 

Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg 

The City of St. Petersburg, also, has been very proactive in reducing nutrient loads to our surrounding bays by 

developing the nation's first 100% reuse system for wastewater. This commitment to wastewater reuse eliminates direct 

discharge of over 50 tons of nutrients yearly to the surface waters surrounding St. Petersburg. Currently, the City has a 

zero discharge of wastewater with recharge being used as an alternate disposal means for wastewater. NNCs 

developed by EPA need to consider wastewater reuse in the proposed rules. The rules cannot be too restrictive so as 

to discourage wastewater reuse. No surface water discharge is available to the City ifreuse is discouraged and such 

activities would not be protective of natural resources if wastewater reuse is discouraged or prohibited by 

implementation of the proposed rules. 

Comment ID 1748-1.001.005 

Author Name: Choi C. 

Organization: Progress Energy on behalf of the Florida Power Corporation doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

While there are a number of other issues, we are particularly concerned with the effect of the proposed criteria on the 

development of alternative water supply projects. PEF has several facilities that are permitted to use groundwater for 

certain needs, such as providing a raw water source for boiler water, auxiliary cooling needs, etc. These water supplies 

are permitted and regulated by the state water management districts. 

A typical condition of the water supply permits for these facilities is to explore the feasibility of using alternative water 

supplies in lieu of groundwater. One of these supplies is treated domestic wastewater effluent (I.e., reclaimed water) 

from municipal publicly owned treatment works (POTW). We would have serious concerns with proceeding with using 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2001
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

these sources of water for the following reasons: 

First, while we would attempt to receive and utilize all of this water source, there may be times when we would need to 

discharge excess reclaimed water during plant shutdown or at other times (I.e., wet weather events). Therefore, during 

a significant portion of time, there would be no discharge and an overall reduction of nutrient loading to a receiving 

water body would be realized. However, given that the proposed criteria are concentration-based, we would be in 

jeopardy of violating the criteria, even if the discharge events are limited. The alternative would be to construct 

expensive treatment or a zero liquid discharge system, which would be at great cost just to meet criteria during limited 

discharge events. Both of these scenarios would force us to seriously reconsider the use of this water source. 

Obviously, the POTW would nonetheless have to continue to discharge this water supply to the receiving water body. 

Hence the overall benefit of net nutrient reduction to receiving water bodies, not to mention reducing the use of ground 

water, will not be realized. This would run counter to the State's current goals. 

Comment ID 1748-1.001.007 

Author Name: Choi C. 

Organization: Progress Energy on behalf of the Florida Power Corporation doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

If EPA proceeds with adoption of nutrient criteria (which we believe is inappropriate as noted above), the Agency should 

seriously consider employing a waste-load allocation alternative in lieu of concentration-based limits. For instance, if a 

permittee had a mass limit for nitrogen or phosphorus that could be discharged over a course of a year, a permittee 

may be able to beneficially reuse these water supplies, thereby reducing the overall nutrient load to a receiving water 

body yet not be penalized for a short-term intermittent discharge. 

Comment ID 1759-1.001.002 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Steward, P.A. on behalf of Babcock Property Holdings, LLC 

Wastewater Reuse 

Floridians use approximately six and a half billion gallons of freshwater each day. With forty percent of the state's 

population and a large agricultural industry, South Florida consumes approximately three and a half billion gallons each 

day or more than half the state total. South Florida residents use an average of one hundred seventy nine (179) gallons 

of water per person per day. It is estimated that approximately half of the water consumed is used for outdoor irrigation. 

Because of Florida's large population and finite water resources, there has been an emphasis on the reuse of water 

from wastewater treatment plants ("WWTP") for the past twenty years in South Florida. 

Wastewater reuse offers an environmentally sound, alternative water supply for many activities that do not require 

potable quality water, such as outdoor irrigation. Reuse of wastewater reduces water withdraws from South Florida's 

already overburdened groundwater aquifers and follows the direction of the regulatory community in Florida of using the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2002
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

lowest quality water first for irrigation. Accordingly, Florida developed standards for reuse wastewater that requires such 

wastewater to contain less than 20 parts per million ("ppm") total nitrogen and less than 10 ppm total phosphorus. 

The utility that will service Babcock's proposed development, Town and Country Utility, was designed and permitted to 

produce wastewater effluent that contains a maximum of 5 ppm total nitrogen and 5 ppm total phosphorus, substantially 

below the allowable treatment level noted above. This was done at a substantial increase in cost to Babcock so that 

reuse of the wastewater would be a viable option throughout Babcock's proposed development. A review of the 

Proposed Rule demonstrates that, should the rule be finalized as proposed, allowable stream concentrations for 

streams that Babcock's project would discharge into would be 1.205 ppm total nitrogen and 0.107 ppm total 

phosphorus. It would likely be impossible for Babcock's project to meet these in stream concentrations. To do so, would 

require more treatment of the wastewater from the Town and Country Utility. The costs associated with additional 

treatment would make deepwell injection of the utility's wastewater more economical. As a result, there would be an 

increase in the need to withdraw additional quantities of groundwater to provide sufficient irrigation for Babcock's 

proposed project, which is contrary to Florida's goal of maximizing wastewater reuse. The impact from the Proposed 

Rule would likely be to increase the burden on Florida's already overburdened groundwater aquifers throughout the 

state and would impact not just Babcock, but many municipalities that rely on reuse for irrigation purposes. 

Comment ID 1759-1.001.007 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Steward, P.A. on behalf of Babcock Property Holdings, LLC 

Despite this significant planning by Babcock, it is likely that it will be impossible for the discharges of Babcock's 

proposed development to meet EPA's nutrient criteria in the Proposed Rule. In order to meet the Proposed Rule, the 

unfortunate reality is that Babcock will likely have to alter its development to include additional groundwater withdrawals 

rather than reusing wastewater from its own utility for irrigation. 

Comment ID 1761-3.001.060 

Author Name: Merrill M. 

Organization: Hillsborough County 

5. A spring run is defined as a free-flowing water body that receives more that 50% of its flow from a spring. However, it 

is not defined as to whether this determination is based on an instantaneous measurement, annual average, period of 

record average, or other measurement. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.003 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2003
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Based on the review of a Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") spreadsheet, a copy of which is 

attached as Exhibit "A" identifying the water body identification numbers ("WBID") that would be considered impaired for 

numeric nutrients under the Proposed Rule, the following water bodies in the Cocoa service area are listed as impaired: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a table showing impaired waters. See original comment letter. 

A copy of the map identifying the locations of these WBIDs in the Cocoa service area is attached as Exhibit "B". 

Cocoa provides reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in areas surrounding these WBIDs. Cocoa is concerned about 

the impact ofthe Proposed Rule on reuse of reclaimed water in these areas. With the Proposed Rule, the nutrient load 

in the reclaimed water would now need to be considered in developing a best management action plan ("BMAP") for 

these water bodies due to the potential runoff or infiltration of reclaimed water into impaired water bodies. Additionally, 

plant upgrades for additional advanced wastewater treatment for reclaimed water will be required so the runoff does not 

contribute to the violation of water quality standards. Based on the review of the DEP spreadsheet identifying the 

impaired WBIDs under the Proposed Rule, the following WBIDs in the reclaimed water service area are identified as 

impaired: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a table showing impaired WBIDs in the reclaimed water 

service area. See original comment letter. 

A map identifying the reclaimed water service areas in relation to impaired WBIDs is attached as Exhibit "C." 

Similar concerns exist for the use of potable water for landscape irrigation where finished potable waters have nutrient 

concentrations in excess of the standards due to the nutrient levels in the source water, chemical additives, and urban 

stormwater runoff. 

The Proposed Rule contains a variety of unintended consequences that have not been considered. Based on these 

potential impacts, Cocoa is significantly affected by the Proposed Rule and offers the following comments and 

recommendations to the EPA. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.014 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

2. Instantaneous Color Sampling is Inappropriate 

Under the Proposed Rule, the classification of a stream as colored or clear is based on the instantaneous color of the 

sample. A "clear stream" is defined as a free-flowing water whose color is less than 40 platinum cobalt units ("PCU"). 

However, many of Florida's streams are at or around 40 PCU. Therefore, at any given moment, a stream may be 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2004
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

classified as colored or clear. Depending on each sample, a stream may be subject to different criteria. Therefore, it is 

impossible to regulate and enforce these standards. 

The EPA should revise the Proposed Rule to determine the classification of the stream based on a long-term average 

color based on a rolling average of up to seven years as it proposes with lakes. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.020 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

C. Springs/Clear Streams 

1. Definition of Spring Run The EPA separately defines "spring run" as a free-flowing water that originates from a spring 

or spring group whose primary (>50 %) source of water is from a spring or spring group. Downstream waters from a 

spring that receive 50% or more of their flow from surface water tributaries are not considered spring runs. The EPA's 

definition is unclear in how the 50% or "primary source of water" is determined. Whether or not a water body is 

classified as a spring run could change at any given moment. In the dry season when a stream is receiving less water 

from precipitation, it may be considered a spring run and subject to the spring criteria under the Proposed Rule. 

However, during the wet season or even during a heavy rain, this water body may receive more water from precipitation 

or runoff and no longer meet the 50% threshold for classification as a spring run. For some major rivers, such as the 

Suwannee or the Ocklawaha Rivers, large portions of the water body could be considered spring runs at various times 

of the year when spring flow makes up 50% or more of the water volume. This discrepancy makes it impossible to 

regulate these waters. 

No mention is made of springs that are subject to back-watering when the receiving water body levels rise, forcing 

water back up the spring run and into the spring boil. This can significantly influence water quality when highly colored 

river water floods a spring boil. Such occurrences can influence the classification of a stream as either clear or colored, 

as most rivers have significantly higher colored water than springs. Since these occurrences may last for an extended 

period of time they can subsequently bias results of sampling in both the spring boil and spring run. 

Finally, the DEP does not define "spring run." Therefore, it is unclear why the EPA has included this definition since the 

Proposed Rule applies to the State identified Class I and Class III waters. Therefore, the EPA should limit the spring 

standard to only the actual spring boil and exclude any application to a spring run. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.033 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

A. Reclaimed Water Should Be Exempt 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2005
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The Proposed Rule fails to address the unintended consequence of eliminating the reuse of reclaimed water. In 

implementing the Proposed Rule, neither the EPA nor DEP have indicated how reuse of reclaimed water will be 

impacted. Depending on the implementation of the Proposed Rule, utilities could be required treat reuse water to the 

same standards required for instream waters because of the potential infiltration or runoff of reuse water into Class I or 

Class III waters regulated under the rule 

To meet these standards, reuse facilities will have to use a very costly membrane process for advanced wastewater 

treatment. Because the facility will have to treat this water to the same levels as surface water, there is no incentive to 

spend additional money for the transmission of reuse. Instead, these facilities will discharge directly into the surface 

water. 

This reduction in reclaimed water available for consumptive uses will also result in an increased demand for ground or 

surface water supplies. The St. Johns River Water Management District Regional Water Supply Plan shows that in 200 

I, facilities produced 354.8 mgd of treated wastewater, approximately 134.1 mgd of this flow was being reused to 

achieve water resource benefit. It estimates an additional 433.1 mgd will be available for reuse in 2025. However, this 

water supply may be lost under the Proposed Rule. 

In order to avoid this potential impact on reuse of reclaimed water, the EPA should clearly state that the Proposed Rule 

should not be used to establish elevated treatment standards for reclaimed water plants. 

Alternatively, the EPA should apply a general reuse reduction factor to any applicable IPVs and DPVs. For example, the 

Tampa Bay Watershed Program Reasonable Assurance Document assumes 90-95% nutrient loading removal as a 

result of reuse. Translating that to a concentration, a wastewater treatment plant could produce a reclaimed water 

product with 20 times the applicable IPV and DPV without violating the standard. Thus, a 0.07 mg/l TN DPV could be a 

1.4 mg/L end-of-pipe standard for the wastewater treatment plant. The recommended equation is: Effective Load = 

(Volume of reclaimed water applied * TN concentration of that water) * Area-specific attenuation factor, with factor 

ranges from 0.2 to 0.05. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.035 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 

C. Potable Water 

The Proposed Rule may indirectly regulate potable water and create conflict with the United States Safe Drinking Water 

Act ("SDWN') where nutrient concentrations in potable water exceed the proposed numeric nutrients. Although outdoor 

use of potable water is not considered a point source requiring a permit and the nutrient load in the potable water would 

not likely not be high enough to be considered a significant contributor to non-point source loading, most utilities flush 

their lines frequently and in many cases discharge the flushed finished water to canals, streams, lakes or ponds. This 

discharge of the flushed finished water to a creek or lake would likely be considered a point source under the Clean 

Water Act and be impacted by the Proposed Rules. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2006
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

It is possible the Proposed Rule may adversely impact Cocoa's potable water use and compliance with the SDWA. In 

testing our finished water for nutrients, we found measurable levels of nutrients in the fmished water coming from either 

the raw water or possibly some of the treatment chemicals that are added to the water to comply with the SDWA. For 

example, chemicals containing phosphorus are added to the water for stabilization and the use of chlorarnines adds 

ammonia. In the process of treating potable water Cocoa adds approximately 1 mg/I ammonia to form chloramines. No 

phosphorus is added. Although Cocoa does not routinely test its potable water for TN or TP, a recent drinking water 

grab sample had TP levels at 0.15 mg/L. If this sample is representative of potable water throughout the entire system, 

Cocoa's potable water will exceed the proposed criteria for TP in all lakes and streams. Test results from other utilities 

across the State further validate Cocoa's concerns. 

For example, in Palm Beach County, the current potable water concentrations would cause violations of the standards 

proposed for Palm Beach County. In the southern two thirds of the County, where the South Florida Canal standards 

apply, the 0.15 mg/I of TP is 3.57 times greater than 0.042 mg/I TP standard. In the northern third of the County, where 

the Peninsula Florida standards apply, the 1.4 mg/I of TN is 1.16 times greater than the 1.205 mg/I TN standard and the 

0.15 mg/I of TP is 1.4 times greater than the 0.107 mg/I TP standard. Also, any discharges to lakes would exceed the 

TN standards by 1.14 to 2.8 times and the TP standards by 3 to 15 times, depending on whether the lake is considered 

colored, clear (alkaline) or clear (acidic) lake. 

Additionally, the TP in the finished water exceeds the TP in the raw water by 5 times (i.e., 0.15 mg/l versus 0.03 mg/I). 

These levels are due to the addition of chemical additives containing phosphorus to ensure compliance with the lead 

and copper rule under the SDWA. 

In Collier County, the utility adds water treatment chemicals that contain nitrogen and phosphorus in the treatment 

process to produce potable water. Ammonia (which contains Nitrogen) is added in the presence of free chlorine to 

produce chloramines, our primary disinfectant used in the disinfection process. A corrosion inhibitor is added to the 

water in order to produce stable finished water; that corrosion inhibitor contains orthophosphate, which contains 

phosphorus. In a recent water quality analysis, samples of finished water were taken at the point of entry to the 

distribution system at both water treatment plants (North County Regional Water Treatment Plant, ("NCRWTP)", and 

South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, ("SCRWTP")) and at two representative water distribution sample 

locations (Bonaire in Lely Barefoot Beach, representative of the extreme north portion of the water distribution system, 

and La Peninsula in Isles of Capri, representative of the extreme south portion of the water distribution system). Point of 

Entry values returned were Total Nitrogen 0.63 mg/L (NCRWTP) and 0.90 mg/L (SCRWTP) and Total Phosphorus 0.51 

mg/L (NCRWTP) and 0.58 (SCRWTP). Water distribution system values returned are Total Nitrogen 1.1 mg/L (Bonaire) 

and 1.1 mg/l (La Peninsula) and Total Phosphorus 0.53 mg/L (Bonaire) and 0.54 mg/L (La Peninsula). These TN values 

exceed the criteria levels for lakes and the TP values exceed the levels for South Florida canals. 

Based on these results, Cocoa is concerned treated potable water may contain nutrients in excess of one or more of 

the proposed criteria because the raw water naturally contains the nutrients and the treatment method does not remove 

the nutrients or the utility adds chemicals to the water to comply with the SDWA and these chemical are composed of 

TN and/or TP like the polyphosphate additive that many utilities use to meet the lead and copper rule under the SDWA. 

If EPA treats line flushing of potable water to Waters of the United States as point source requiring compliance with the 

Proposed Rule, utilities will either be forced to curtail or modify their line flushing activities so as to only discharge to 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2007
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

storm sewers or storage ponds, which are not waters of the United States or modify their treatment process in order to 

reduce nutrient concentrations in the finished water. In either case, this could significantly increase the costs associated 

with the Proposed Rule and have an unintended negative impact on public health, safety and welfare. Utilities will be 

placed in the untenable position of having to juggle compliance with public health and safety values, as embodied by 

the Lead and Copper Rule under the SDWA and environmental protection values as embodied by the Proposed Rule 

under the Clean Water Act. 

In order to avoid this potential conflict with the SDWA, we recommend the EPA exempt finished potable water 

discharges from the Proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.021 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

Based on the review of a Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") spreadsheet, a copy of which is 

attached as Exhibit "A" identifying the water body identification numbers ("WBID") that would be considered impaired for 

numeric nutrients under the Proposed Rule, the following water bodies in the Plant City service area are listed as 

impaired: 

A copy of the map identifying the locations of these WBIDs in the Plant City service area is attached as Exhibit "B". 

Plant City provides reclaimed water for industrial, agricultural and residential landscape irrigation in areas surrounding 

these impaired WEIDs. Plant City is concerned about the impact of the Proposed Rule will have on reuse of reclaimed 

water in these areas. With the Proposed Rule, the nutrient load in the reclaimed water would now need to be 

considered in developing a Basin Management Action Plans ("BMAP") for the water bodies due to the potential runoff or 

infiltration of reclaimed water into impaired water bodies. Additionally, plant upgrades for additional advanced 

wastewater treatment for reclaimed water will be required so the runoff does not contribute to the violation of water 

quality standards. Based on the review of the DEP spreadsheet identifying the impaired WBIDs under the Proposed 

Rule, the following water bodies in the Plant City reclaimed water service area are listed as impaired: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2: City of Plant City Reclaimed Water Service Area 

Freshwater WBIDs impaired for nutrients based on proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Rule. 

A map identifying the reclaimed water service areas in relation to impaired WBIDs is attached as Exhibit "C." 

Similar concerns exist for the use of potable water for landscape irrigation where finished potable waters have nutrient 

concentrations in excess of the standards due to the nutrient levels in the source water, chemical additives, and urban 

stormwater runoff. 

Based on these potential impacts, Plant City is significantly affected by the Proposed Rule and offers the following 

comments and recommendations to the EPA. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2008
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.034 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

2. Instantaneous Color Sampling is Inappropriate Under the Proposed Rule, the classification of a stream as colored or 

clear is based on the instantaneous color of the sample. A "clear stream" is defrned as a free-flowing water whose color 

is less than 40 platinum cobalt units ("PCU"). However, many of Florida's streams are at or around 40 PCU. Therefore, 

at any given moment, a stream may be classified as colored or clear. Depending on each sample, a stream may be 

subject to different criteria. Therefore it is impossible to regulate and enforce these standards. 

The EPA should revise the Proposed Rule to determine the classification of the stream based on a long-term average 

color based on a rolling average of up to seven years as it proposes with lakes. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.044 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

C. Springs/Clear Streams 

1. Definition of Spring Run 

The EPA separately defines "spring run" as a free-flowing water that originates from a spring or spring group whose 

primary (>50 %) source of water is from a spring or spring group, Downstream waters from a spring that receive 50% or 

more of their flow from surface water tributaries are not considered spring runs. The EPA's definition is unclear in how 

the 50% or "primary source of water" is determined. Whether or not a water body is classified as a spring run could 

change at any given moment. In the dry season when a stream is receiving less water from precipitation, it may be 

considered a spring run and subject to the spring criteria under the Proposed Rille. However, during the wet season or 

even during a heavy rain, this water body may receive more water from precipitation or runoff and no longer meet the 

50% threshold for classification as a spring run. For some major rivers, such as the SUwannee or the Ocklawaha 

Rivers, large portions of the water body could be considered spring runs at various times of the year when spring flow 

makes up 50% or more ofthe water volume. This discrepancy makes it impossible to regulate these waters. 

No mention is made of springs that are subject to back-watering when the receiving water body levels rise, forcing 

water back up the spring run and into the spring boil. This can significantly influence water quality when highly colored 

river water floods a spring boil. Such occurrences can influence the classification of a stream as either clear or colored, 

as most rivers have significantly higher colored water than springs. Since these occurrences may last for an extended 

period of time they can subsequently bias results of sampling in both the spring boil and spring run. 

Finally, the DEP does not define "spring run." Therefore it is unclear why the EPA has included this definition since the 

Proposed Rule applies to the State identified Class I and Class III waters. Therefore, the EPA should limit the spring 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2009
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

standard to only the actual spring boil and exclude any application to a spring run. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.057 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

A. Reclaimed Water Should Be Exempt 

The Proposed Rule fails to address the unintended consequence of eliminating the reuse of reclaimed water. In 

implementing the Proposed Rule, neither the EPA nor DEI' have indicated how reuse of reclaimed water will be 

impacted. Depending on the implementation of the Proposed Rule, utilities could be required treat reuse water to the 

same standards required for instream waters because of the potential infiltration or runoff of reuse water into Class I or 

Class III waters regulated under the rule. 

To meet these standards, reuse facilities will have to use a very costly membrane process for advanced wastewater 

treatment. Because the facility will have to treat this water to the same levels as surface water, there is no incentive to 

spend additional money for the transmission of reuse. Instead, these facilities will discharge directly into the surface 

water. 

This reduction in reclaimed water available for consumptive uses will also result in an increased demand for ground or 

surface water supplies. The Southwest Florida Water Management District Regional Water Supply Plan shows that in 

2006, reclaimed water projects were estimated to offset potable quality water use by approximately 149 mgd. Reuse is 

expected to increase to more than 300 mgd in 2010. In 2010, 260 mgd could be used to offset 195 mgd of potable 

water demands. In 2025, the projected wastewater treatment flow is approximately 414 mgd, Of this amount 310 mgd 

could be used and 232 could offset regional water demands. However, this water supply may be lost under the 

Proposed Rule. 

In order to avoid this potential impact on reuse of reclaimed water, the EPA should clearly state that the Proposed Rule 

should not be used to establish elevated treatment standards for reclaimed water plants. 

Alternatively, the EPA should apply a general reuse reduction factor to any applicable IPVs and DPVs. For example, the 

Tampa Bay Watershed Program Reasonable Assurance Document assumes 90-95% nutrient loading removal as a 

result of reuse. Translating that to a concentration, a wastewater treatment plant could produce a reclaimed water 

product with 20 times the applicable IPV and DPV without violating the standard. Thus, a 0.07 mg/I TN DPV could be a 

1.4 mgIL end-of-pipe standard for the wastewater treatment plant, which will still require more treatment than the 

current LOT of 3.0 mg/L and will likely require implementation of a membrane treatment process. The recommended 

equation is: Effective Load = (Volume of reclaimed water applied * TN concentration of that water) * Area-specific 

attenuation factor, with factor ranges from 0.2 to 0.05. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.059 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2010
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 

C. Potable Water 

The Proposed Rule may indirectly regulate potable water and create conflict with the United States Safe Drinking Water 

Act ("SDWA") where nutrient concentrations in potable water exceed the proposed numeric nutrients. Although outdoor 

use of potable water is not considered a point source requiring a permit and the nutrient load in the potable water would 

not likely not be high enough to be considered a significant contributor to non-point source loading, most utilities flush 

their lines frequently and in many cases discharge the flushed finished water to canals, streams, lakes or ponds. This 

discharge of the flushed finished water to a creek or lake would likely be considered a point source under the Clean 

Water Act and be impacted by the Proposed Rules. 

In testing our finished water for nutrients, we found measurable levels of nutrients in the finished water coming from 

either the raw water or possibly some of the treatment chemicals that are added to the water to comply with the SDWA. 

For example, Plant City adds a compound containing a polyphosphate for stabilization, which increases TP values. 

In Plant City, the current potable water concentrations would cause violations of the TP standards proposed for lakes in 

the Bone Valley Region. The typical value of TP in finished drinking water was in the range of 0.3 to 0.5 rng/L. However, 

the TP values for lakes in the Bone Valley Region ranges from 0.050 to 0.010 mg/L depeniling on whether the lake is 

considered colored, clear (alkaline) or clear (acidic) lake. Regardless of the applicable lake criteria, the TP values for 

Plant City's finished drinking water will exceed the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

If EPA treats line flushing of potable water to Waters of the United States as point source requiring compliance with the 

Proposed RuIe, utilities will either be forced to curtail or rnodify their line flushing activities so as to only discharge to 

storm sewers or storage ponds, which are not waters of the United States or rnodify their treatment process in order to 

reduce nutrient concentrations in the finished Water. In either case, this couId significantly increase the costs 

associated with the Proposed RuIe and have an unintended negative impact on public health, safety and welfare. 

Utilities will be placed in the untenable position of having to juggle compliance with public health and safety values, as 

embodied by the Lead and Copper Rule under the SDWA and environmental protection values as embodied by the 

Proposed RuIe under the Clean Water Act. 

In order to avoid this potential conflict with the SDWA, we recommend the EPA exempt finished potable water 

discharges from the Proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.028 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

Based on the review of a Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") spreadsheet identifying the water 

body identification numbers ("WBID") that would be considered impaired for numeric nutrients under the Proposed 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2011
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Rule, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A", the water bodies in Seminole's service area are listed as impaired are 

attached as Exhibit "B". 

A copy of the map identifying the locations of these WBIDs in the Seminole service area is attached as Exhibit "C". 

Seminole County operates two wastewater treatment plants: Greenwood Lakes and Yankee Lake and has purchased 

capacity in the City of Orlando's Iron Bridge wastewater treatment plant. For the two wastewater plants owned by the 

county, significant investment is already underway to upgrade these facilities to continue maintaining compliance with 

existing regulations. From an operational point, Seminole County's concerns are directly related to the impact of the 

Proposed Rule on our Yankee Lake Water Reclamation Facility. We are permitted for a NPDES discharge for wet 

weather backup. If we ever have to use it, there would be a major concern regarding our ability to consistently meet the 

proposed limits for nitrogen and phosphorus. 

Additionally, both of our Wastewater Facilities use Rapid Infiltration Basins that if required to meet new limits under the 

Proposed Rule, would require updating the facility to treat the effluent with a Reverse Osmosis ("RO") processes prior 

to discharge. The Iron Bridge Facility, which we are a co-owners of, discharges to the Little Econ River and the St. 

Johns River. Because of these surface water discharges, the Iron Bridge Facility will also require upgrading to meet the 

standards in the Proposed Rule. Additionally, we are concerned about the potential impact of the Proposed Rule on our 

reclaimed water systems. Seminole County invested significant time and money in reclaimed water systems as an 

alternative water supply allowing for the reduction in potable groundwater withdrawals. If forced to meet the new limits 

would require the same treatment as indicated above and cause the same impacts. 

Seminole County provides reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in both residential and commercial applications. 

Such use is part of an integrated water management strategy to optimize the best use of the water source. Potable 

water offsets resulting from the application of reclaimed water maximize available groundwater for drinking water 

consumption while delaying the need for more expensive alternative water solutions. Seminole County is concerned 

about the impact of the Proposed Rule on reuse of reclaimed water in these areas. With the Proposed Rule, the nutrient 

load in the reclaimed water would now need to be considered in developing a best management action plan ("BMAP") 

for these water bodies due to the potential runoff or infiltration of reclaimed water into impaired water bodies. 

Additionally, plant upgrades for additional advanced wastewater treatment for reclaimed water will be required so the 

runoff does not contribute to the violation of water quality standards. Based on the review of the DEP spreadsheet 

identifying the impaired WBIDs under the Proposed Rule, a table identifying the impaired WBIDs in the reclaimed water 

service area is attached as Exhibit "D". A map identifying the reclaimed water service areas in relation to impaired 

WBIDs is attached as Exhibit "E." 

Similar concerns exist with the use of potable water for landscape irrigation where finished potable water has nutrient 

concentrations in excess of the proposed standards due to the nutrient levels in the source water, chemical additives, 

and urban stormwater runoff. 

The Proposed Rule contains a variety of unintended consequences that have not been considered. Based on these 

potential impacts, Seminole is significantly affected by the Proposed Rule and offers the following comments and 

recommendations to the EPA. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2012
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.043 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

2. Instantaneous Color Sampling is Inappropriate 

Under the Proposed Rule, the classification of a stream as colored or clear is based on the instantaneous color of the 

sample. A "clear stream" is defined as a freeflowing water whose color is less than 40 platinum cobalt units ("PCU"). 

However, many of Florida's streams are at or around 40 PCU. Therefore, at any given moment, a stream may be 

classified as colored or clear. Depending on each sample, a stream may be subject to different criteria. Therefore it is 

impossible to regulate and enforce these standards. 

The EPA should revise the Proposed Rule to determine the classification of the stream based on a long-term average 

color based on a rolling average of up to seven years as it proposes with lakes. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.054 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

C. Comments on Proposed Springs/Clear Streams Criteria 

1. Definition of Spring Run 

The EPA separately defines "spring run" as a free-flowing water that originates from a spring or spring group whose 

primary (>50 %) source of water is from a spring or spring group. Downstream waters from a spring that receive 50% or 

more of their flow from surface water tributaries are not considered spring runs. The EPA's definition is unclear in how 

the 50% or "primary source of water" is determined. Whether or not a water body is classified as a spring run could 

change at any given moment. In the dry season when a stream is receiving less water from precipitation, it may be 

considered a spring run and subject to the spring criteria under the Proposed Rule. However, during the wet season or 

even during a heavy rain, this water body may receive more water from precipitation or runoff and no longer meet the 

50% threshold for classification as a spring run. For some major rivers, such as the Suwannee or the Ocklawaha 

Rivers, large portions of the water body could be considered spring runs at various times of the year when spring flow 

makes up 50% or more of the water volume. This discrepancy makes it impossible to regulate these waters. 

No mention is made of springs that are subject to back-watering when the receiving water body levels rise, forcing 

water back up the spring run and into the spring boil. This can significantly influence water quality when highly colored 

river water floods a spring boil. Such occurrences can influence the classification of a stream as either clear or colored, 

as most rivers have significantly higher colored water than springs. Since these occurrences may last for an extended 

period of time they can subsequently bias results of sampling in both the spring boil and spring run. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2013
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Finally, the DEP does not define "spring run." Therefore, it is unclear why the EPA has included this definition since the 

Proposed Rule applies to the State identified Class I and Class III waters. Therefore, the EPA should limit the spring 

standard to only the actual spring boil and exclude any application to a spring run. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.067 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

A. Reclaimed Water Should Be Exempt 

The Proposed Rule fails to address the unintended consequence of eliminating the reuse of reclaimed water. In 

implementing the Proposed Rule, neither the EPA nor DEP have indicated how reuse of reclaimed water will be 

impacted. Depending on the implementation of the Proposed Rule, utilities could be required treat reuse water to the 

same standards required for instream waters because of the potential infiltration or runoff of reuse water into Class I or 

Class III waters regulated under the rule 

To meet these standards, reuse facilities will have to use a very costly membrane process for advanced wastewater 

treatment. Because the facility will have to treat this water to the same levels as surface water, there is no incentive to 

spend additional money for the transmission of reuse. Instead, these facilities will discharge directly into the surface 

water. 

This reduction in reclaimed water available for consumptive uses will also result in an increased demand for ground or 

surface water supplies. The St. Johns River Water Management District Regional Water Supply Plan shows that in 

2001, facilities produced 354.8 mgd of treated wastewater, approximately 134.1 mgd of this flow was being reused to 

achieve water resource benefit. It estimates an additional 433.1 mgd will be available for reuse in 2025. However, this 

water supply may be lost under the Proposed Rule. 

In order to avoid this potential impact on reuse of reclaimed water, the EPA should clearly state that the Proposed Rule 

should not be used to establish elevated treatment standards for reclaimed water plants. 

Alternatively, the EPA should apply a general reuse reduction factor to any applicable IPVs and DPVs. For example, the 

Tampa Bay Watershed Program Reasonable Assurance Document assumes 90-95% nutrient loading removal as a 

result of reuse. Translating that to a concentration, a wastewater treatment plant could produce a reclaimed water 

product with 20 times the applicable IPV and DPV without violating the standard. Thus, a 0.07 mg/l TN DPV could be a 

1.4 mg/L end-of-pipe standard for the wastewater treatment plant. The recommended equation is: Effective Load = 

(Volume of reclaimed water applied * TN concentration of that water) * Area-specific attenuation factor, with factor 

ranges from 0.2 to 0.05. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.069 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2014
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 

C. Potable Water 

The Proposed Rule may indirectly regulate potable water and create conflict with the United States Safe Drinking Water 

Act ("SDWA") where nutrient concentrations in potable water exceed the proposed numeric nutrient levels. Although 

outdoor use of potable water is not considered a point source requiring a permit and the nutrient load in the potable 

water would not likely not be high enough to be considered a significant contributor to non-point source loading, most 

utilities flush their lines frequently and in many cases discharge the flushed finished water to canals, streams, lakes or 

ponds. This discharge of the flushed finished water to these surface waters would likely be considered a point source 

discharge under the Clean Water Act and be impacted by the Proposed Rules. 

In testing our finished water for nutrients, we found measurable levels of nutrients in the finished water coming from 

either the raw water or possibly some of the treatment chemicals that are added to the water to comply with the SDWA. 

For example, chemicals containing phosphorus are added to the water for stabilization and the use of chloramines adds 

ammonia. 

In Seminole County, the current potable water concentrations would cause violations of the standards proposed for 

Seminole County. Although Seminole County does not test its potable water for TN, we recently collected TP values for 

the Apple Valley station. At the point of entry, the TP values ranged from 0.2 mg/L to 0.37 mg/L, with an average TP 

value of 0.245 mg/L. In the Peninsula Region, the proposed TP limit for streams is 0.107 mg/L. Based on the samples 

taken at the Apple Valley station, Seminole County's finished potable water would not meet this criterion. The TP 

criterion limits for lakes are 0.050 mg/L for colored lakes, 0.030mg/L for clear/alkaline lakes, and 0.010 mg/L for 

clear/acidic lakes. Regardless of the type of lake the finished water may discharge into, Seminole County's finished 

potable water will exceed these values. 

If EPA treats line flushing of potable water to Waters of the United States as point source requiring compliance with the 

Proposed Rule, utilities will either be forced to curtail or modify their line flushing activities so as to only discharge to 

storm sewers or storage ponds, which are not waters of the United States or modify their treatment process in order to 

reduce nutrient concentrations in the finished water. In either case, this could significantly increase the costs associated 

with the Proposed Rule and have an unintended negative impact on public health, safety and welfare. Utilities will be 

placed in the untenable position of having to juggle compliance with public health and safety values, as embodied by 

the Lead and Copper Rule under the SDWA and environmental protection values as embodied by the Proposed Rule 

under the Clean Water Act. 

In order to avoid this potential conflict with the SDWA, we recommend the EPA exempt finished potable water 

discharges from the Proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.022 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2015
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Based on the review of a Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") spreadsheet identifYing the water 

body identification nilmbers ("WEID") that would be considered impaired for numeric nutrients under the Proposed Rule, 

a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A", the following water bodies in the Titusville service area are listed as 

impaired: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. City of Titusville Freshwater WBIDs Impaired for 

Nutrients based on Proposed EPA criteria. See original comment letter. 

A copy of the map identifying the locations of these WBIDs in the Titusville service area is attached as Exhibit "B". 

Titusville provides reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in areas surrounding these impaired WElDs. Titusville is 

concerned about the impact of the Proposed Rule on reuse of reclaimed water in these areas. With the Proposed Rule, 

the nutrient load in the reclaimed water must be considered in developing best management action plans ("BMAP") for 

these water bodies due to the potential runoff or infiltration of reclaimed water into impaired water bodies. Additionally, 

plant upgrades for additional advanced wastewater treatment for reclaimed water will be required so the runoff does not 

contribute to the violation of water quality standards. 

Similar concerns exist for the use of potable water for landscape irrigation where finished potable waters have nutrient 

concentrations in excess of the standards due to the nutrient levels in the source water, chemical additives, and urban 

storrnwater runoff. 

The Proposed Rule contains a variety of unintended consequences that have not been considered. Based on these 

potential impacts, Titusville is significantly affected by the Proposed Rule and offers the following comments and 

recommendations to the EPA. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.037 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

2. Instantaneous Color Sampling is Inappropriate 

Under the Proposed Rule, the classification of a stream as colored or clear is based on the instantaneous color of the 

sample. A "clear stream" is defined as a free-flowing water whose color is less than 40 platinum cobalt units ("PCD"). 

However, many of Florida's streams are at or around 40 PCU. Therefore, at any given moment, a stream may be 

classified as colored or clear. Depending on each sample, a stream may be subject to different criteria. Therefore, it is 

impossible to regulate and enforce these standards. 

The EPA should revise the Proposed Rule to determine the classification of the stream based on a long-term average 

color based on a rolling average of up to seven years as it proposes with lakes. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.048 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2016
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

C. Springs/Clear Streams 

1. Definition of Spring Run 

The EPA separately defines "spring run" as a free-flowing water that originates from a spring or spring group whose 

primary (>50 %) source of water is from a spring or spring group. Downstream waters from from a spring that reveive 

50% or more of their flow from surface water tributaries are not considered spring runs. The EPA's definition is unclear 

in how the 50% or "primary source of water" is determined. Whether or not a water body is classified as a spring run 

could change at any given moment. In the dry season when a stream is receiving less water from precipitation, it may 

be considered a spring run and subject to the spring criteria under the Proposed Rule. However, during the wet season 

or even during a heavy rain, this water body may receive more water from precipitation or runoff and no longer meet the 

50% threshold for classification as a spring run. For some major rivers, such as the Suwannee or the Ocklawaha 

Rivers, large portions of the water body could be considered spring runs at various times of the year when spring flow 

makes up 50% or more of the water volume. This discrepancy makes it impossible to regulate these waters. 

No mention is made of springs that are subject to back-watering when the receiving water body levels rise, forcing 

water back up the spring run and into the spring boil. This can significantly influence water quality when highly colored 

river water floods a spring boil. Such occurrences can influence the classification of a stream as either clear or colored, 

as most rivers have significantly higher colored water than springs. Since these occurrences may last for an extended 

period of time they can subsequently bias results of sampling in both the spring boil and spring run. 

Finally, the DEP does not define "spring run." Therefore it is unclear why the EPA has included this defmition since the 

Proposed Rule applies to the State identified Class I and Class III waters. Therefore, the EPA should limit the spring 

standard to only the actual spring boil and exclude any application to a spring run. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.060 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

A. Reclaimed Water Should Be Exempt 

The Proposed Rule fails to address the unintended consequence of eliminating the reuse of reclaimed water. In 

implementing the Proposed Rule, neither the EPA nor DEP have indicated how reuse of reclaimed water will be 

impacted. Depending on the implementation of the Proposed Rule, utilities could be required treat reuse water to the 

same standards required for instream waters because of the potential infiltration or runoff of reuse water into Class I or 

Class III waters regulated under the rule 

To meet these standards, reuse facilities will have to use a very costly membrane process for advanced wastewater 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2017
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

treatment. Because the facility will have to treat this water to the same levels as surface water, there is no incentive to 

spend additional money for the transmission of reuse. Instead, these facilities will discharge directly into the surface 

water. 

This reduction in reclaimed water available for consumptive uses will also result in an increased demand for ground or 

surface water supplies. The St. Johns River Water Management District Regional Water Supply Plan shows that in 

2001, facilities produced 354.8 mgd of treated wastewater, approximately 134.1 mgd of this flow was being reused to 

achieve water resource benefit. It estimates an additional 433.1 mgd will be available for reuse in 2025. However, this 

water supply may be lost under the Proposed Rule. 

In order to avoid this potential impact on reuse of reclaimed water, the EPA should clearly state that the Proposed Rule 

should not be used to establish elevated treatment standards for reclaimed water plants. 

Alternatively, the EPA should apply a general reuse reduction factor to any applicable IPVs and DPVs, For example, the 

Tampa Bay Watershed Program Reasonable Assurance Document assumes 90-95% nutrient loading removal as a 

result of reuse. Translating that to a concentration, a wastewater treatment plant could produce a reclaimed water 

product with 20 times the applicable IPV and DPV without violating the standard. Thus, a 0.07 mg/I 1N DPV could be a 

1.4 mg/L end-of-pipe standard for the wastewater treatment plant. The recommended equation is: Effective Load = 

(Volume of reclaimed water applied *TN concentration of that water) * Area-specific attenuation factor, with factor 

ranges from 0.2 to 0.05. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.062 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 

C. Potable Water 

The Proposed Rule may indirectly regulate potable water and create conflict with the United States Safe Drinking Water 

Act ("SDWA") where nutrient concentrations in potable water exceed the proposed numeric nutrients. Although outdoor 

use of potable water is not considered a point source requiring a perrrtit and the nutrient load in the potable water would 

not likely not be high enough to be considered a significant contributor to non-point source loading, most utilities flush 

their lines frequently and in many cases discharge the flushed finished water to canals, streams, lakes or ponds. This 

discharge of the flushed fmished water to a creek or lake would likely be considered a point source under the Clean 

Water Act and be impacted by the Proposed Rules. 

In testing our finished water for nutrients, we found measurable levels of nutrients in the finished water coming from 

either the raw water or possibly some of the treatment chemicals that are added to the water to comply with the SDWA. 

For example, chemicals containing phosphorus are added to the water for stabilization and the use of chloramines adds 

ammonia. 

In Palm Beach County, the current potable water concentrations would cause violations of the standards proposed for 

Palm Beach County. In the southern two thirds of the County, where the South Florida Canal standards apply, the 0.15 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2018
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

mg/I of TP is 3.57 times greater than 0.042 fig/I TP standard. In the northern third of the COUJ1ty, where the Peninsula 

Florida standards apply, the 1.4 mg/l oflN is 1.16 times greater than the 1.205 mglI IN standard and the 0.15 mg/l of TP 

is 1.4 times greater than the 0.107 mgII TP standard. Also, any discharges to lakes would exceed the IN standards by 

1.14 to 2.8 times and the TP standards by 3 to 15 times, depending on whether the lake is considered colored, clear 

(alkaline) or clear (acidic) lake. 

Additionally, the TP in the finished water exceeds the TP in the raw water by 5 times (i.e., 0.15 mglI versus 0.03 mg/l). 

These levels are due to the addition of chemical additives containing phosphoruS to ensure compliance wit..~ the lead 

a~d copper rule under the SDWA. 

It is possible the Proposed Rule may adversely impact Titusville's potable water use and compliance with the SDWA. 

For example, in Palm Beach County, the current potable water concentrations would cause violations of the standards 

proposed for Palm Beach County. In the southern two thirds of the County, where the South Florida Canal standards 

apply, the 0.15 mg/l ofTP is 3.57 times greater than 0.042 mg/l TP standard. In the northern third of the County, Where 

the Peninsula Florida standards apply, the 1.4 mg/l oflN is 1.16 times greater than the 1.205 mglI TN standard and the 

0.15 mglI ofTP is 1.4 times greater than the 0.1 07 mglI TP standard. Also, any discharges to lakes would exceed the 

TN standards by 1.14 to 2.8 times and the TP standards by 3 to 15 times, depending on whether the lake is considered 

colored, clear (alkaline) or clear (acidic) lake. 

Additionally, the TP in the finished water exceeds the TP in the raw water by 5 times (i.e., 0.15 mg/l versus 0.03 mg/l). 

These levels are due to the addition of chemical additives containing phosphorus to ensure compliance with the lead 

and copper rule under the SDWA. 

Furthermore, in Collier County, the utility adds water treatment chemicals that contain nitrogen and phosphorus in the 

treatment process to prOduce potable water. Ammonia (which contains Nitrogen) is added in the presence of free 

chlorine to produce chlorarnines, our primary disinfectant used in the disinfection process. A corrosion inhibitor is added 

to the water in order to produce a stable finished water; that corrosion inhibitor contains orthophosphate, which contains 

phosphorus. In a recent water quality analysiS, samples of finished water were taken at the point of entry to the 

distribution system at both water treatment plants (North County Regional Water Treatment Plant, ("NCRWTP)", and 

South County Regional Water Treatment Plant, ("SCRWTP")) and at two representative water distribution sample 

locations (Bonaire in Lely Barefoot Beach, representative of the extreme north portion of the water distribution system, 

and La Peninsula in Isles of Capri, representative of the extreme south portion of the water distribution system). Point of 

Entry values returned Were Total Nitrogen 0.63 mg/L (NCRWTP) and 0.90 mg/L (SCRWTP) and Total Phosphorus 

0.51 mglL (NCRWTP) and 0.58 (SCRWTP). Water distribution system values returned are Total Nitrogen 1.1 mg/L 

(Bonaire) and 1.1 mg/l (La Peninsula) and Total Phosphorus 0.53 mg/L (Bonaire) and 0.54 mg/L (La Peninsula). These 

TN values exceed the criteria levels for lakes and the TP values exceed the levels for South Florida canals. 

Based on these sample results, Titusville is concerned treated potable water may contain nutrients in excess of one or 

more of the proposed criteria becaus"e the raw water naturally contains the nutrients and the treatment method does 

not remove the nutrients or the utility adds chemicals to the water to comply with the SDWA and these chemical are 

composed ofTN and/or TP like the polyphosphate additive that many utilities use to meet the lead and copper rule 

under the SDWA. Because Titusville does not typically test its potable water for these criterion, actual data for Titusville 

was not available within the EPA's public comment period for the Proposed Rule and is therefore not included. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2019
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

If EPA treats line flushing of potable water to Waters of the United States as point source requiring compliance with the 

Proposed Rule, utilities will either be forced to curtail or modify their line flushing activities so as to only discharge to 

storm sewers or storage ponds, which are not waters of the United States or modify their treatment process in order to 

reduce nutrient concentrations in the finished water. In either case, this could significantly increase the costs associated 

with the Proposed Rule and have an unintended negative impact on public health, safety and welfare. Utilities will be 

placed in the untenable position of having to juggle compliance with public health and safety values, as embodied by 

the Lead and Copper Rule under the SDWA and environmental protection values as embodied by the Proposed Rule 

under the Clean Water Act. 

In order to avoid this potential conflict with the SDWA, we recommend the EPA exempt finished potable water 

discharges from the Proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.025 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

Based on the review of a Florida Department ofEnviromnental Protection ("DEP") spreadsheet identifying the water 

body identification numbers ("WBlD") that would be considered impaired for numeric nutrients under the Proposed Rule, 

a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A", the water bodies in OUC's service area are listed as impaired are attached 

as Exhibit "B". 

A copy of the map identifying the locations of these WBIDs in the OUC service area is attached as Exhibit "C". 

OUC provides reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in areas surrounding these impaired WBIDs. auc is concerned 

about the impact of the Proposed Rule on reuse of reclaimed water in these areas. With the Proposed Rule, the nutrient 

load in the reclaimed water would now need to be considered in developing a best management action plan ("BMAP") 

for these water bodies due to the potential runoff or infiltration of reclaimed water into impaired water bodies. 

Additionally, plant upgrades for additional advanced wastewater treatment for reclaimed water will be required so the 

runoff does not contribute to the violation of water quality standards. Based on the review of the DEP spreadsheet 

identifying the impaired WBIDs under the Proposed Rule, a table identifying the impaired WBlDs in the reclaimed water 

service area is attached as Exhibit "B". A map identifying the reclaimed water service areas in relation to impaired 

WBlDs is attached as Exhibit "C." 

Similar concerns exist for the use of potable water for landscape irrigation where finished potable waters have nutrient 

concentrations in excess of the standards due to the nutrient levels in the source water, chemical additives, and urban 

stormwater runoff. In addition, OUC often has to flush water mains in order to maintain minimum water quality to 

safeguard the health of customers who use the water, and to comply with chlorine residual requirements of the safe 

drinking water regulations established by FDEP. The flushed water is discharged to stormwater sewers or stormwater 

ponds which could eventually overflow into natural systems. 

As groundwater sources become more limited, OUC will need to develop alternative water supply from surface waters 

to meet long-term future water demands. Because the withdrawal of surface waters increases concentrations 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2020
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

downstream and will probably cause water quality violations, the proposed rule can prohibit surface water withdrawals. 

This is significant concern for OUC and other utilities in meeting long-term customer demands. 

OUC is currently applying for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit for its Stanton 

Energy Center (SEC) power plant. During some recent rains, water was discharged from OUC's stormwater pond that 

was designed to be a zero discharge facility. As a potential discharger, OUC is significantly impacted by the Proposed 

Rule. 

The Proposed Rule contains a variety of unintended consequences that have not been considered. Based on these 

potential impacts, OUC is significantly affected by the Proposed Rule and offers the following comments and 

recommendations to the EPA. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.038 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

2. Instantaneous Color Sampling is Inappropriate 

Under the Proposed Rule, the classification of a stream as colored or clear is based on the instantaneous color of the 

sample. A "clear stream" is defined as a freeflowing water whose color is less than 40 platinum cobalt units ("PCU"). 

However, many of Florida's streams are at or around 40 PCU. Therefore, at any given moment, a stream may be 

classified as colored or clear. Depending on each sample, a stream may be subject to different criteria. Therefore it is 

impossible to regulate and enforce these standards. 

The EPA should revise the Proposed Rule to determine the classification of the stream based on a long-term average 

color based on a rolling average of up to seven years as it proposes with lakes. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.049 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

C. Springs/Clear Streams 

1. Definition of Spring Run 

The EPA separately defines "spring run" as a free-flowing water that originates from a spring or spring group whose 

primary (>50 %) source of water is from a spring or spring group. Downstream waters from a spring that receive 50% or 

more of their flow from surface water tributaries are not considered spring runs. The EPA's definition is unclear in how 

the 50% or "primary source of water" is determined. Whether or not a water body is classified as a spring run could 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2021
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

change at any given moment. In the dry season when a stream is receiving less water from precipitation, it may be 

considered a spring run and subject to the spring criteria under the Proposed Rule. However, during the wet season or 

even during a heavy rain, this water body may receive more water from precipitation or runoff and no longer meet the 

50% threshold for classification as a spring run. For some major rivers, such as the Suwannee or the Ocklawaha 

Rivers, large portions of the water body could be considered spring runs at various times of the year when spring flow 

makes up 50% or more of the water volume. This discrepancy makes it impossible to regulate these waters. 

No mention is made of springs that are subject to back-watering when the receiving water body levels rise, forcing 

water back up the spring run and into the spring boil. This can significantly influence water quality when highly colored 

river water floods a spring boil. Such occurrences can influence the classification of a stream as either clear or colored, 

as most rivers have significantly higher colored water than springs. Since these occurrences may last for an extended 

period of time they can subsequently bias results of sampling in both the spring boil and spring run. 

Finally, the DEP does not define "spring run." Therefore, it is unclear why the EPA has included this definition since the 

Proposed Rule applies to the State identified Class I and Class III waters. Therefore, the EPA should limit the spring 

standard to only the actual spring boil and exclude any application to a spring run. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.060 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

A. Reclaimed Water Should Be Exempt 

The Proposed Rule fails to address the unintended consequence of eliminating the reuse of reclaimed water. In 

implementing the Proposed Rule, neither the EPA nor DEP have indicated how reuse of reclaimed water will be 

impacted. Depending on the implementation of the Proposed Rule, utilities could be required treat reuse water to the 

same standards required for instream waters because of the potential infiltration or runoff of reuse water into Class I or 

Class III waters regulated under the rule 

To meet these standards, reuse facilities will have to use a very costly membrane process for advanced wastewater 

treatment. Because the facility will have to treat this water to the same levels as surface water, there is no incentive to 

spend additional money for the transmission of reuse. Instead, these facilities will discharge directly into the surface 

water. 

This reduction in reclaimed water available for consumptive uses will also result in an increased demand for ground or 

surface water supplies. The St. Johns River Water Management District Regional Water Supply Plan shows that in 

2001, facilities produced 354.8 mgd of treated wastewater, approximately 134.1 mgd of this flow was being reused to 

achieve water resource benefit. It estimates an additional 433.1 mgd will be available for reuse in 2025. However, this 

water supply may be lost under the Proposed Rule. 

The South Florida Water Management District Regional Water Supply Plan for the Kissimmee Basin states that in 2001, 

over 122 mgd of reclaimed water was generated for reuse in the Kissimmee Basin Planning Area. In 2005, Kissimmee 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2022
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Basin Planning Area reused 100 percent of its wastewater flows. By 2025, projected wastewater flows are expected to 

double, exceeding 243 mgd, and it is projected that the reclaimed water capacity will increase to 183 mgd. However, 

this water supply may be lost under the Proposed Rule. 

In order to avoid this potential impact on reuse of reclaimed water, the EPA should clearly state that the Proposed Rule 

should not be used to establish elevated treatment standards for reclaimed water plants. 

Alternatively, the EPA should apply a general reuse reduction factor to any applicable IPVs and DPVs. For example, the 

Tampa Bay Watershed Program Reasonable Assurance Document assumes 90-95% nutrient loading removal as a 

result of reuse. Translating that to a concentration, a wastewater treatment plant could produce a reclaimed water 

product with 20 times the applicable IPV and DPV without violating the standard. Thus, a 0.07 mg/I TN DPV could be a 

1.4 mg/L end-of-pipe standard for the wastewater treatment plant. The recommended equation is: Effective Load = 

(Volume of reclaimed water applied * TN concentration of that water) * Area-specific attenuation factor, with factor 

ranges from 0.2 to 0.05. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.062 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 

C. Potable Water 

The Proposed Rule may indirectly regulate potable water and create conflict with the United States Safe Drinking Water 

Act ("SDWA") where nutrient concentrations in potable water exceed the proposed numeric nutrients. Although outdoor 

use of potable water is not considered a point source requiring a permit and the nutrient load in the potable water would 

not likely not be high enough to be considered a significant contributor to non-point source loading, most utilities flush 

their lines frequently and in many cases discharge the flushed finished water to canals, streams, lakes or ponds. At 

OUC, water is discharged to storm sewers or stormwater ponds. This eventual discharge of the flushed finished water 

to a creek or lake would likely be considered a point source under the Clean Water Act and be impacted by the 

Proposed Rules. 

It is possible the Proposed Rule may adversely impact OUC's potable water use and compliance with the SOWA. In 

testing OUC finished water for nutrients, we found measurable levels of nutrients in the raw water from the pristine deep 

aquifer. Samples of finished water at eight plants included TP values exceeding the proposed 0.107 TP numeric 

nutrient standard for streams at six of the eight plants. All eight plants exceeded the proposed lake standards for 

colored, clear (alkaline), and clear (acidic) lakes. A copy of OUC's potable water test results are attached hereto as 

Exhibit "E." The fact that this pristine water coming from the deep potable aquifer exceeds the proposed criteria limits is 

further evidence of the unreasonable standards contained in the Proposed Rules. 

Based on these sample results, OUC is concerned treated potable water may contain nutrients in excess of one or 

more of the proposed criteria because the raw water naturally contains the nutrients that the treatment method does not 

remove. Additionally, auc is concerned this issue will become more problematic in the future, because St. Johns River 

Water Management District has capped auc's existing groundwater allocation because of concerns over the impact of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2023
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

cumulative groundwater withdrawals on lakes and wetlands in the Central Florida and auc has committed to utilizing 

water withdrawn from the St. Johns River to meet its future water demands. 

The St. Johns River currently contains nutrients exceeding the proposed criteria and the selected treatment method 

may not remove or reduce the nutrients. This situation may prevent auc from flushing lines and discharging the treated 

water to stormwater ponds and streams, as is currently the case or may force auc to subject the surface water to a 

higher and more expensive level of treatment that would not be required simply to meet the requirements of the SDWA. 

If EPA treats line flushing of potable water to Waters of the United States as point source requiring compliance with the 

Proposed Rule, utilities will either be forced to curtail or modify their line flushing activities so as to only discharge to 

storm sewers or storage ponds, which are not waters of the United States or modify their treatment process in order to 

reduce nutrient concentrations in the finished water. In either case, this could significantly increase the costs associated 

with the Proposed Rule and have an unintended negative impact on public health, safety and welfare. Utilities will be 

placed in the untenable position of having to juggle compliance with public health and safety values, as embodied by 

the Lead and Copper Rule under the SDWA and environmental protection values as embodied by the Proposed Rule 

under the Clean Water Act. 

In order to avoid this potential conflict with the SDWA, we recommend the EPA exempt finished potable water 

discharges from the Proposed Rule. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.005 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

4. Stormwater discharges from a pipe or confined ditch within urbanized areas are considered point sources according 

to the Clean Water Act. While discharges can be episodic, a measure of the average concentration of a pollutant during 

a storm event is called an event mean concentration (EMC). In the development of statewide stormwater treatment 

regulations, FDEP is using "Evaluation of Current Stormwater pesign Criteria within the State of Florida" (Harper, H.H. 

and D. M. Baker, Environmental Research & Design, Inc., June 2007). Table 4-17 from this report identifies the 

literature-based runoff characterization for undeveloped/ rangeland/ forest lands (natural lands): TN is l.15 mg/l and TP 

is 0.055 mg/l. Therefore, runoff from natural lands would not be allowed into clear lakes because of TN and TP and not 

in colored lakes for TN; natural lands would not be able to discharge into Panhandle streams due to TN and TP; and 

natural lands would not be able to discharge to south Florida canals due to TP. Table 4-17 also shows that no other 

land use identified (urban or agricultural) would be allowed to discharge directly either since the EMCs exceed the 

criteria proposed. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.025 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2024
 
 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

• EPA rules will likely result in requiring increased treatment of wastewater discharges into impaired waters or into 

South Florida canals that are used for "reclaimed" purposes. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.038 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

• The criteria would be applied to "recreational waters" without regard to their actual use, highlighting the absurdities of 

Florida's waterbody classification system. Stormwater conveyances and urban ditches would often be required to 

meeting the same criteria as "swimmable and fishable" streams, lakes and rivers. 

Comment ID 1777-2.001.032 

Author Name: Blanchard B. 

Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 

5. A spring run is defined as a free-flowing water body that receives more that 50% of its flow from a spring. However, 

it is not defined as to whether this determination is based on an instantaneous measurement, annual average, period of 

record average, or other measurement. 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.004 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District

 On page 36 EPA states that this rule is to apply to "predominantly fresh waters" as defined as "surface waters in which 

chloride concentration at the surface is less than 1,500 milligrams per liter...." While this definition is quite clear, it does 

not address how application of the numeric criteria might be affected by temporal variability in chloride concentrations. 

For example, in the relatively unregulated Loxahatchee River chloride concentrations can vary significantly at a given 

water quality monitoring station depending on the stage of the tide (e.g., high tide versus low tide) as well as the amount 

of freshwater flowing downstream (e.g., wet season versus dry season, but also immediately following rains versus after 

a prolonged dry period). In fact, it is possible to have a station that has about half of the annual samples defined as 

freshwater and the remaining samples that do not meet the freshwater definition. For example see daily salinity 

conditions in the Loxahatchee River at the mouth of Kitching Creek (river mile 8.2) as illustrated in the graph provided 

below. Similarly, during extreme discharge events freshwater may reach all the way to the inlet (e.g., river mile 0), while 

during protracted dry periods saline water may reach ten miles upstream. EPA must define how such temporal/spatial 

variability will be addressed in the context of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information for rivers and streams from Loxahatchee River District 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2025
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

(Loxahatchee River at the Mouth of Kitching Creek - daily max and min of salinity levels). See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.007 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District

 On page 4-4 of the document Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's 

Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida (January, 2010) EPA identifies reuse of reclaimed water as a suitable 

approach to decrease the volume of nutrient containing water discharged to receiving water bodies. The LRD applauds 

EPA's recognition of the value of reuse programs; nonetheless, we believe EPA must clarify their position regarding 

reuse of reclaimed water relative to the interpretation and application of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. In 

particular, the LRD requests reuse (reclaimed) water used for landscape irrigation be specifically excluded from the 

proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.010 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District

 LRD's water quality data show nutrient concentrations in reuse (reclaimed) water typically exceeded the numeric 

nutrient criteria established by the EPA. For example, during the period 2000-2009, LRD's reuse water contained 

significant concentrations of total nitrogen (18.7-25.2 mg-N/L) and total phosphorus (0.2-3.3 mg-P/L), shown as the 

minimum and maximum annual geometric means observed during the period 2000 through 2009. Total nitrogen 

concentrations, expressed as maximum annual geometric mean, decreased as reuse water moved from the wastewater 

treatment plant effluent (25.2 mg-N/L) to the on-site reuse storage lake (16.8 mg- N/L) to the off-site reuse/stormwater 

storage lake (8.7 mg-N/L), and ultimately the downstream canal (1.7 mg-N/L). Total phosphorus concentrations, 

expressed as maximum annual geometric mean, showed a similar pattern decreasing from the wastewater treatment 

plant effluent (3.4 mg- P/L) to the on-site reuse storage lake (2.1 mg-P/L) to the off-site reuse/stormwater storage lake 

(1.7 mg-P/L), and ultimately the downstream canal (0.2 mg-P/L). These water quality data clearly show decreasing 

concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus as water moves from the wastewater treatment facility, through 

multiple storage ponds, blends with stormwater, and ultimately out to the downstream canal. One interpretation of these 

data is that the system has significant assimilative capacity. For example, reuse water leaving the treatment facility 

exceeded the numeric nutrient criteria for both nitrogen and phosphorus during each of the 10 years of data we 

reviewed; however, in the downstream canal the phosphorus criteria was only exceeded once in ten years while the 

nitrogen criteria was exceeded four times in ten years. 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.011 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2026
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District

 Please carefully revise your definition of "lakes and flowing waters" to exclude lakes and flowing waters within surface 

water management systems pursuant to Florida Statute 373.412. Specifically, lakes, flowing waters, and canals 

upstream of a manmade water control structure should be identified as not subject to this proposed rule. Furthermore, 

the LRD requests that the EPA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection continue to use both mixing 

zones and zones of discharge to effectively manage potential downstream nutrient impacts. 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.012 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District

 Since 1984, the LRD has treated and disbursed more than 33 billion gallons of reclaimed wastewater, used to irrigate 

thirteen locations including golf courses and a large, mixed use community with schools, public parks, a stadium, and 

4,000 residences. Prior to and following the addition of a site to the LRD reuse system, groundwater quality was 

monitored on a quarterly basis at a background well and up to three compliance wells. A comprehensive analysis of 

more than 13,000 groundwater data points collected at our reuse sites during the period 1984 through 2006 showed 

irrigation with reuse water had no system-wide, negative effect on any of the monitored water quality parameters 

(Arrington and Dent 2008). These findings demonstrate that groundwater quality was maintained through more than 20 

years of irrigation with reclaimed water. 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.014 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District

 Forcing reuse (reclaimed) water to meet EPA's numeric nutrient criteria will significantly increase the cost of producing 

reuse water, and will result in wastewater treatment facilities with a permitted deep injection well preferentially disposing 

of treated effluent down their deep injection wells rather than beneficially reusing reclaimed water for landscape 

irrigation projects. This would be a horrible unintended consequence of EPA's numeric nutrient criteria. The chart below 

shows the cumulative number of days (per year) that the minimum flow (35 cubic feet per second) was not delivered to 

the nationally designated wild and scenic Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. When the minimum flow is violated 

(e.g., flow over Lainhart Dam < 35 cubic feet per second) the river experiences ‘significant harm' (see Florida 

Administrative Rule 40E-8.221). In fact, most local agencies believe the most persistent and significant threat to the 

Loxahatchee River is saltwater encroachment resulting from too little freshwater flowing over Lainhart Dam (Orem et al. 

2007). In order to partially remedy this persistent threat to the Loxahatchee River, in 1984 the Loxahatchee River 

District began using reclaimed water for landscape irrigation at local golf courses. Today this project has recycled over 

33 billion gallons of water, which is roughly equivalent to saving 33 billion gallons of water for the natural environment. 

This innovative water recycling program lowers the demands on natural freshwater resources and preserves untapped 

waters to help meet the needs of the Loxahatchee River. If reuse (reclaimed) water must meet the numeric nutrient 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2027
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

criteria, it will simply be much more cost 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 6 titled Number of Days Minimum Flow 

Target Not Met (flow over Lainhart Dam < 35 cfs) from Loxahatchee River District. See original comment letter. 

effective to turn off LRD's reuse pumps and turn on LRD's deep injection well pumps. Therefore, if reuse is not 

exempted from meeting the numeric nutrient criteria, EPA's numeric nutrient criteria will function as a significant 

deterrent to environmentally beneficial water recycling projects because it will be infinitely cheaper to dispose of 

reclaimed water through deep injection well rather than constructing and operating nutrient removal facilities so that 

reuse water meets EPA's numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.015 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District

 Florida governmental agencies at the state, regional, and local levels, have developed legislation and provided millions 

of dollars in funding to encourage the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water. Wastewater treatment facilities have been 

working diligently to optimize reuse systems (sensu McKim et al 2009) in order to maximize the benefits of reuse (i.e., 

conserving potable water for highest and best use, stretching overall water supplies, delaying implementation of more 

costly alternative water supply projects). Unfortunately, application of EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria to reuse 

water will result in a minimization of reuse programs as reuse purveyors seek to minimize capital and operational cost 

exposure. 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.018 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District 

We applaud the EPA and Florida's Department of Environmental Protection for their efforts to protect aquatic life; 

however, it appears that the proposed numeric nutrient criteria will likely significantly constrain reuse opportunities, 

which would ultimately harm aquatic environments - clearly an unfortunate, unintended consequence. Therefore, the 

LRD recommends the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Florida's Department of Environmental Protection 

exclude reuse water from Numeric Nutrient Criteria. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2028
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1780-1.001.006 

Author Name: Piper R. 

Organization: Florida Power and Light Company 

5. EPA Should Ensure that the Proposed Rule Does not Interfere with Water Reuse Initiatives

 Florida is confronting significant water supply challenges. Strains on traditional sources of water supplies have led to 

restrictions on groundwater withdrawals in central Florida, the identification of water use caution areas in southwest 

Florida, and a substantial initiative to meet projected water demands in southeast Florida with reclaimed water. The 

proposed rule has the potential to limit the ability of industrial water uses holding NPDES permits to utilize reclaimed 

water in lieu of groundwater, even in cases where use of reclaimed water results in a net improvement to nutrient levels. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.036 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Alternative Water Supply Development 

In Florida, we are facing significant water supply challenges. Strains on traditional water supplies have led to caps on 

groundwater withdrawals in central Florida,[88] water use caution areas in southwest Florida,[89] and a substantial 

initiative to meet projected water demands in southeast Florida with reclaimed water.[90] 

[88] Groundwater withdrawals are presently capped by the three water management districts sharing jurisdiction over 

the "Central Florida Coordination," because the districts have concluded that "sustainable quantities of groundwater in 

central Florida are insufficient to meet all future public water supply demands and that there is an immediate need to 

develop and implement supplemental water supply projects." See http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/projects/cfca/; 

https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_watersupply/pg_sfwmd_watersupply_centralflcoord; and 

http://cfcawater.com/. 

[89] The Southwest Florida Water Management District has established the "Southern Water Use Caution Area" in a 

region of Southwest Florida where the District has concluded that water resources will become critical over the next 

twenty years. See SWFWMD, SWUCA, at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/waterman/swuca/. 

[90] See discussion infra regarding Ocean Outfalls legislation. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.037 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2029
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

EPA's proposed rule provides no indication that the agency has even considered how this rulemaking will affect 

regulatory programs and projects designed to achieve water supply demands. Florida's water management districts, 

however, are absolutely depending on the reuse of reclaimed water to meet projected water supply demands,[91] and 

water supply utilities are also investing in treatment systems that convert raw water sources (e.g. brackish water and 

sea water) into potable water. 

Reuse of Reclaimed Water 

Florida policy promotes the use of reclaimed water to meet these public supply demands. Chapter 373, Florida 

Statutes, states that "[t]he encouragement and promotion of water conservation and reuse of reclaimed water...are 

state objectives and considered to be in the public interest."[92] Further, the Florida Legislature has determined "that 

the reuse of reclaimed water is a critical component of meeting the state's existing and future water supply needs while 

sustaining natural systems"[93] FDEP facilitates the reuse of reclaimed water through its Water Resource 

Implementation Rule, which requires the FDEP and water management districts to advocate and direct the reuse of 

reclaimed water as an integral part of water management programs, rules and plans.[94] 

When a utility applies to FDEP for a permit to construct or modify a facility that provides reclaimed water for irrigation 

purposes, the utility must provide FDEP with reasonable assurances that the project will not "cause or contribute to 

violations of water quality standards in surface waters."[95] FDEP rules require that "[i]f water quality standards cannot 

be met, additional treatment or disinfection shall be provided or other operational control measures shall be 

implemented."[96] 

The adoption of EPA's proposed nutrient criteria rule will seriously -- and needlessly - impede the development of 

reclaimed water supplies. EPA's proposed rule will place greater than 80% of Florida's flowing waters -- including 

waters showing no signs of nutrient impairment - in violation of water quality standards. Utilities developing reclaimed 

water irrigation projects located in these so-called impaired watersheds will be required to demonstrate that the projects 

do not "cause or contribute" to the nutrient impairment of those water bodies, even if the nutrient impairment is an 

illusory artifact of EPA's broad-brushed regional nutrient criteria. These reuse permitting requirements are over and 

above the requirements imposed on utilities through the TMDL program (a TMDL program that of course will be 

overwhelmed by healthy, yet "nutrient impaired," water bodies). Further, industries that may otherwise accept reclaimed 

water to meet their non-potable demands for industrial processes may decline or be unable to use reclaimed water due 

to the impact of the nutrients in the reclaimed water on their industrial discharges. 

The adoption of the proposed standards would particularly impact utilities in Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade 

County. In 2008, the Florida Legislature passed comprehensive ocean outfalls legislation that requires six major 

treatment facilities in southeast Florida discharging 300 million gallons per day of effluent through ocean outfalls to 

achieve 60 percent reuse of reclaimed water by December 31, 2025.[97] The Legislature passed this bill in response to 

strains on public water supply sources in southeast Florida,[98] because reports indicated that the groundwater supplies 

and "regional system" of the Everglades and Lake Okeechobee could not support the projected growth in public supply 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2030
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

over the next twenty years.[99] In response, the Legislature mandated that these Southeast Florida utilities develop 

reuse systems to substitute potable water sources for urban and agricultural landscapes, industrial and commercial 

uses, and augmenting or recharging surface and groundwater supplies.[100] 

EPA's proposed nutrient criteria for Florida canals places these utilities in an untenable position. On the one hand, the 

utilities must develop extensive reuse systems to comply with state law. On the other hand, the utilities must also 

comply with EPA's crude canal standards through both the TMDL program and by demonstrating in their operating 

permit applications that their reuse systems will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards.[101] 

Because discharges to groundwater have the potential to influence surface water quality in Southeast Florida,[102] this 

will be an extraordinary, if not insurmountable, task. 

Reclaimed water with nutrient a concentrations of 3 mg/L-TN is generally considered the "gold standard" for domestic 

wastewater treatment effluent regulation, due to the limits of biological treatment.[103] Southeast Florida utilities faced 

with nutrient reductions due to EPA's canal standards may be forced to utilize extraordinarily expensive membrane 

technologies to achieve further nutrient reductions. It is unclear what environmental benefit EPA's nutrient criteria would 

achieve when applied to these reclaimed water providers, but it is clear that the implementation of a state public water 

supply program will be severely frustrated, and ratepayers in Southeast Florida will likely see their utility rates increase 

exponentially. 

[91] SRJWMD, 2005 District Water Supply Plan, Fourth Addendum, 5 (May 12, 2009) ("SJRWMD has estimated that 

200 million gallons per day (mgd) of alternative water supplies or a reduction in demand through water conservation 

and increased use of reclaimed water (see subsection titled Replacement of Potable Water Supply Use) would have to 

be implemented to meet the projected water demands identified in Water Supply Assessment 2003 (WSA 2003) without 

resultant unacceptable impacts to water resources and related natural systems."), available at 

http://sjr.state.fl.us/technicalreports/pdfs/TP/SJ2006-2Addendum4.pdf; SWFWMD, 2006 Regional Water Supply Plan 

(Dec. 2006) ("Reclaimed water, if used effectively and efficiently, has great potential to help meet the 2025 water supply 

demand."), available at http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/plans/RWSP/previous/rwsp.pdf; NWFWMD, 2008 

Region III Regional Water Supply Plan, 9 (Aug. 2008) ("Reuse of treated wastewater and stormwater also comprises a 

strategy that holds promise for both reducing near term and managing long-term water demand.") available at 

ttp://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/rmd/water_supply_planning/Region%20III%20RWSP_08­

12-08%20FINALweb%20version.pdf; SFWMD, Below the Surface: An In-depth Look at Water Reuse: A Safe and 

Effective Way to Save Water (2005), available at http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/pls/portal/docs/15246931.PDF. 

[92] § 373.250(1), F.S. 

[93] § 403.064(1), F.S.; see also, § 373.1961(3)(f), F.S. (listing reuse system development as a criterion to guide WMD 

funding towards water supply projects that protect public and environmental health) and § 373.0831(4)(a)3, F.S. (stating 

that reuse water supply projects contributing to the "sustainability of regional water sources" shall receive "priority 

funding" from the WMDs). 

[94] Chapter 62-40, F.A.C. 

[95] Rules 62-610.850(1)(a); 610.800(1), F.A.C. 

[96] Id. at (1)(d). 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2031
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

[97] 2008 Laws of Florida 232. 

[98] See Florida Senate Bill Analysis and Fiscal Impact Statement, CS /CS / 1302 (April 2, 2008), available at 

http://www.flsenate.gov/data/session/2008/Senate/bills/analysis/pdf/2008s1302.ga.pdf. 

[99] Id. 

[100] While the cost of implementing this program is still disputed, a University of Florida study projected that the costs 

of developing these reclaimed water systems will range from $1.85 to $3.33 per 1000 gallons treated and cause the 

average sewer bill for these utilities to increase by nearly $20 per month. Koopman/Heaney et al, Ocean Outfall Study, 

University of Florida Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences ( April 18, 2006), available at 

http://dep.state.fl.us/water/reuse/docs/OceanOutfallStudy.pdf 

[101] Rules 62-610.850; 610.800, F.A.C. 

[102] See, e.g., C.D. Langevin, et al., Numerical Simulation of Integrated Surface Water / Groundwater Flow and Solute 

Transport in the Southern Everglades, Florida, USGS, available at 

http://time.er.usgs.gov/publications/abstracts/Langevin_paper.pdf; Harry Jenkins, The Biscayne Aquifer in Southeast 

Florida, Emporia State University (Spring 2009), available at 

http://academic.emporia.edu/schulmem/hydro/TERM%20PROJECTS/2009/Jenkins/Harry.htm. 

[103] See, Carollo Engineers, Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida's Domestic Water Reclamation 

Facilities (2010). 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.005 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

6. It is uncertain how the proposed numeric nutrient criteria will effect facilities with infrequent (once in 5 years) 

emergency discharges due to extreme weather events, or how it will impact the use of reclaimed water. 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.030 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

X. Impact of EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria on Reclaimed Water: 

There is much uncertainty concerning the methodology to implement the numeric nutrient criteria including not the least 

of which is whether reclaimed water used for irrigation purposes will be subject to numeric nutrient criteria if it causes or 

contributes to any stream or surfacewater body that doesn't meet the proposed NNC. GRU has committed to an 

aggressive reclaimed water program since 1993 to offset the use of potable water for irrigation purposes. This includes 

significant investment in reclaimed water infrastructure including high service pumps, RCW transmission and 

distribution mains, and aesthetic water features. GRU is currently designing an approximately $7,000,000 reclaimed 

water repump station and storage tank in order to continue to expand and deliver reclaimed water to current and future 

customers and reduce the demand for water on the Floridan Aquifer. The proposed NNC may prevent the use of 

reclaimed water within our service area. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2032
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

(Reference Document: 

The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) strongly encourages and requires the use of the reclaimed 

water by water utilities to offset the use of potable water for irrigation purposes. GRU's current consumptive use permit 

(CUP), MWTP CUP #11339-5, contains a condition as follows: 

"34. The permittee shall implement the reuse of reclaimed water to the maximum extent possible unless the permittee 

demonstrates that implementation is not technically, economically, and environmentally feasible. The goal of this reuse 

by the permittee shall be to maximize the direct use of all available reclaimed water to meet irrigation needs in place of 

a higher quality water source (e.g. groundwater supply)..." 

(Reference Document: Appendix E: MWTP CUP #11339-5) 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.032 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

The proposed criteria could place both the existing use of reclaimed water as well as all future use of reclaimed water in 

jeopardy and be in direct contradiction of the Water Management District goals. 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.039 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

6. It is uncertain how the proposed numeric nutrient criteria will effect facilities with infrequent (once in 5 years) 

emergency discharges due to extreme weather events, or how it will impact the use of reclaimed water. 

Comment ID 1785-1.001.007 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

• Lee County has significantly reduced discharges through utilization of reclaimed water and wishes to continue with 

these improvements. To encourage the continued use of reclaimed water, the proposed Rule should be based on 

loading measurements rather than strict concentration. 

• Reclaimed water is critical to reduce nutrient loads in the Caloosahatchee River. Rule implementation that allows for 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2033
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

continued and expanded reclaimed water programs is necessary to provide an alternative which will reduce nutrient 

discharge into the receiving waterbody. 

Comment ID 1785-1.001.016 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

F. Effect on Reclaimed Water

 In Florida, due to limited water supply, the use of reclaimed water has been mandated by state and regional 

agencies to offset potable supply. Reclaimed water can be utilized to meet a variety of water uses such as: irrigation; 

urban wetland development, restoration and/or enhancement; ground water recharge; salt water intrusion protection; 

augmentation of surface waters; and industrial purposes. Under the proposed numeric nutrient standards, the use of 

reclaimed water might not only be hindered, but potentially could be eliminated as an option completely. This will not 

only eliminate an important alternative water supply and undermine potable water conservation, but costly infrastructure 

will become obsolete.

 Lee County's reclaimed water has provided a valuable alternative water supply that reduces the County's demand 

for ground and surface water sources. Additionally, the reclaimed water serves as a beneficial use for wastewater 

effluent that reduces outfall discharges to waters of the state. Further, EPA has not provided clear direction as to the 

application of the proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria on non-point sources or on a watershed basis. Clarification from 

the EPA as to the application of the proposed rule on reclaimed water is critical and the County welcomes the 

opportunity to work with the EPA on these reclaimed water issues. 

Comment ID 1785-1.001.020 

Author Name: Hall T. 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida 

Regarding Rule implementation, the Numeric Nutrient Criteria do not clearly distinguish estuarine and freshwater 

standards. The use of the term "predominately" is confusing.[3] Salinity levels change with tide and seasons and the 

line of distinction may vary geographically. This is critical to Lee County where we have inter-connected riverine and 

estuary systems. 

[3.] EPA defines "predominately fresh waters" to mean surface waters in which chloride concentration at the surface is 

less than 1,500 mg/L. Lee County Utilities has two NPDES permitted wastewater treatment plants that discharge into 

the Caloosahatchee River west of S-79. This area of the river is deemed to be marine, but under the EPA definition of 

fresh waters the location of our outfalls could possibly meet the definition of fresh throughout certain times of the year. 

Depending on what is "predominately" could place our outfalls under fresh water stream criteria instead of estuarine. 

The term "predominately" needs to be clarified. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2034
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1788-1.001.005 

Author Name: Fisher D. 

Organization: Osceola County 

3. Specifically Exclude Stormwater Treatment Facilities from having to comply with NNC 

Bodies of water associated with stormwater treatment or conveyance of stormwater are explicitly excluded by Florida 

Statute (373.4142) from the need to comply with Florida's water quality standards; this exemption does not seem to be 

incorporated into EPA's proposed NNC. In effect, this discrepancy could bring about a situation whereby a stormwater 

treatment system could be held to the same water quality standards as the downstream water body the stormwater 

system was designed to protect. It is thereby recommended that EPA specifically exclude stormwater treatment 

facilities from having to comply with the NNC. 

Comment ID 1795-1.001.004 

Author Name: Palmer D. 

Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority 

Pensacola on average receives about 64 inches of rain per year. This is among the highest average in the nation 

except for some mountainous areas of the northwest. Last year we had more than 88 inches of rain. When there are 

heavy rains, which happen frequently in Northwest Florida, there has to be a backup discharge. This fact was 

recognized by the Florida legislature when it passed the APRICOT act for Florida. This act allows wastewater plants 

that meet AWT standards for reuse to discharge up to 30% of their reuse capacity to surface water. If we have a backup 

discharge we will have to treat to the new NNC standards. 

If deep well injection is considered we need approximately 33 mgd worth of deepwell injection sites just to handle the 

wastewater from our three plants. This is based on plant capacity which does not allow for peak flows. It is doubtful that 

the aquifer could take this impact. Additionally, if it could take it, the impact to existing deepwells would be substantial 

due to increased pressures which would require us to upgrade multiple other wells in the area. 

The last option is to try to treat to the new levels. As stated earlier we are in the Panhandle area as identified by the 

new rule. The standards for this part of the state are lower than the rest of the state because we have cleaner reference 

streams. The new standards have nothing to do with the assimilative capacities of the streams or rivers. Additionally 

they are not related necessarily to healthy estuaries or streams. The Apalachicola basin has some of the highest 

nutrient levels and it is one of the highest quality bays in Florida by many standards. Additionally, this standard is not 

based on any treatment scheme that is conventionally attainable. 

It might be possible to meet the standard to treat to AWT levels followed by Reverse Osmosis (RO.) It is questionable, 

especially if any downstream impacts are considered, that there is any technology available that will meet the new rule 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2035
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

limits. We attended a conference last year put on by the Water Environment Federation called Real World Limits of 

Technology for Wastewater Treatment Plants. The generally accepted limits of technology are 3 mg/l for TN and 0.1 for 

TP. These limits are not easy or inexpensive but can be met. To go beyond that for permit limits requires exotic 

treatments such as RO. However RO is limited in its capacity to remove Nitrogen. 

The proposed TN standard for NW Florida is approximately 1⁄4 of the limit of technology for total Nitrogen and less than 

half for total phosphorus. There are plants that do better than the limits of technology and we have two of those plants. 

They average a little over 2 mg/l for TN. But we are not aware of any technology that does 1⁄4 of the limit of conventional 

technology for TN. 

The impacts of RO are also many and costly. For us at one site it would require condemnation of waterfront property at 

another site we are surrounded by wetlands and it would require wetland filling and massive mitigation. It would require 

building elevated RO plants and reject wells in a coastal storm surge zone. It provides no real treatment just separation 

and the only possibly feasible disposal for the concentrate in our area is deep well injection. Our opinion is this is a bad 

solution. But those are minor issues compared to the cost. We believe this would cost more than 275 million dollars in 

capital costs and more than another 8 million dollars in ongoing operation and maintenance for our three treatment 

plants. These costs would require us to more than double our current sewer rates. 

If we upgraded to the standards and spend hundreds of millions of dollars the potential environmental gains are 

minimal. For example, by moving the Main Street Plant, we will be removing approximately 1.5 % of the total nutrients 

coming to the Pensacola Bay. Our current results, even without AWT, are generally within several hundreds of a 

milligram per liter of background in the boil from the discharge. Below is a table showing two recent sampling events. 

The Bay sample is the background sample and is located more than a mile away in the Pensacola Bay. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the table on page 3 of the pdf containing sampling data from 

Emerald Coast Utilities Authority, Pensacola, Florida. See original comment letter. 

Even if we upgrade and meet the new standards and spend billions of dollars as an industry (hundreds of millions in our 

particular case), the vast majority of the nutrients are still there. Most come from unregulated items such as non-point 

surface water runoff, atmospheric deposition and some that are difficult to regulate such as old septic tanks and nonpermitted stormwater systems. 

Comment ID 1805-1.001.001 

Author Name: Gallagher J. 

Organization: Pasco County 

Pasco County feels that there are a number of significant issues that need to be addressed prior to the adoption of the 

numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and streams. Our full technical comments are provided in an enclosed report by 

Applied Technology and Management, Inc. (ATM). 

Pasco County property owners currently pay over $10 million per year to fund the County's stormwater utility and we 

ask that before you adopt new regulations that will lead to an increase in utility fees, you address the scientific issues 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2036
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

raised in the ATM report. Pasco County residents, parks, and farmers also utilize over 15 million gallons per day of 

reclaimed water for various irrigation needs. We share the concerns of the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District that the new nutrient criteria will likely curtail the use of or prevent the expansion of the use of this vital water 

resource. 

Pasco County also operates a wastewater utility that relies upon direct and indirect reuse for effluent disposal. The 

proposed criteria could lead to much more costly methods of treatment and disposal. We also endorse the comments of 

the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium, of which Pasco County is a participant, regarding the downstream 

protective values for estuaries. 

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the criteria and look forward to working with you to address these 

scientific policy concerns. 

Comment ID 1805-3.001.045 

Author Name: Gallagher J. 

Organization: Pasco County 

5. A spring run is defined as a free-flowing water body that receives more that 50% of its flow from a spring. However, it 

is not defined as to whether this determination is based on an instantaneous measurement, annual average, period of 

record average, or other measurement. 

Comment ID 1811-1.001.007 

Author Name: Carpinone P. 

Organization: Tampa Electric Company 

Finally, due to the limited availability of ground water in the State of Florida, industry is increasingly relying on domestic 

wastewater reuse as a source for service water for industrial processes. EPA did not consider the effects that the 

proposed nutrient criteria will have on the State's efforts to increase reuse. Due to the inability of reclaim water to meet 

the proposed freshwater numeric nutrient criteria, the efforts of municipalities to increase reuse and efforts of industry to 

accept reuse water for processes will be negatively affected. 

Comment ID 1811-1.001.008 

Author Name: Carpinone P. 

Organization: Tampa Electric Company 

EPA's proposed rule will directly affect a major reuse project that is currently in the planning stages at TEC's Polk 

Power Station. TEC recently entered into a public-private partnership to reduce the amount of nutrients flowing into the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2037
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Alafia River, a major river that feeds Tampa Bay, while ensuring the supply of approximately 4 million gallons per day of 

treated domestic wastewater for cooling reservoir make up at the Polk Power Station (PPS), an integrated gasification 

and combined cycle facility. As is the case at PPS, many industrial processes require water at a higher quality than 

typical domestic wastewater and must treat any effluent before introducing it into an industrial system. As a result, a 

potential industrial reuse customer must chose a treatment option that makes receiving treated domestic wastewater a 

viable option. EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria discourage the use of a treatment method that results in any 

surface water discharge, greatly reducing the options to industrial reuse customers and increasing the potential 

economic impact of switching from ground water to reclaim water. By not allowing industry to discharge any amount of 

reclaim water, EPA's proposed rule creates a regulatory barrier that discourages the use of treated domestic 

wastewater for industrial processes, interfering with the State's current and future water supply plans. 

Comment ID 1811-1.001.010 

Author Name: Carpinone P. 

Organization: Tampa Electric Company 

TEC also supports the State of Florida's efforts to increase the reuse of domestic wastewater and believes that EPA's 

support of Florida's efforts to increase reuse is essential to ensure freshwater is available for all of Florida's citizens and 

should be reflected in the establishment ofnumeric nutrient criteria. 

TEC appreciates the opportunity to comment on this extremely important issue and would be happy to provide 

additional information to your agency. Thank you for your consideration. 

Comment ID 1832-1.001.002 

Author Name: Steele W. 

Organization: Department of Public Services, City of Crestview 

We are concerned about the proposed numeric nutrient criteria as it relates to our existing and proposed treatment and 

disposal systems for the following reasons: 

• Even though the existing WWTF and proposed expansion are designed for nitrogen removal, the effluent entering the 

groundwater will not meet the proposed NNC limits before entering the surface waters. The expansion does not include 

phosphorus removal. It is unclear how the proposed rule will affect disposal systems that discharge to groundwater. 

Comment ID 1832-1.001.005 

Author Name: Steele W. 

Organization: Department of Public Services, City of Crestview 

The proposed rule will discourage the use of reclaimed water for irrigation and other non-potable water uses because of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2038
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

the potential for the nitrogen in the effluent to enter the groundwater, which eventually influences the surface waters 

surrounding the City. The goal of our proposed reclaimed water program is to reduce demands on the region's 

groundwater and the City's potable water. 

Comment ID 1836.001.008 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

- Limiting the ability of industrial water users that have NPDES permits to utilize reclaimed water in lieu of groundwater 

even when the use results in a net improvement to nutrient levels 

- Limiting the ability to transfer reclaimed water between subbasins, as an offset to 

groundwater use, even when that use results in a net reduction in nutrient levels . 

- Impacting the ability of nonpoint source dischargers to use reclaimed water even when that use results in a net 

reduction in nutrient levels . 

Comment ID 1836.001.048 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

G. General Comments and Requests for Clarification 

37. SWFWMD supports the use of reclaimed water systems as a method of lessening dependence on groundwater and 

is concerned about potential unintended impacts that numeric nutrient criteria will have on reclaimed water use (page 

4208, proposed rule). SWFWMD has invested over $300 million in the development of reclaimed water systems . 

Currently, reclaimed water systems within SWFWMD's sixteen-county area provide 221 million gallons per day (mgd) of 

reclaimed water that is used to achieve a 147 mgd reduction in the reliance on ground and surface water. Over reliance 

on groundwater that predates SWFWMD permitting authority has resulted in unacceptable impacts to resources, 

including (1) reduced lake levels on the Lake Wales Ridge, (2) reduced flows in the upper Peace River, and (3) saltwater intrusion into the Upper Floridan aquifer along the coast (Southwest Florida Water Management District 2006). 

The use of reclaimed water is one of the key management actions that SWFWMD has employed to reduce groundwater 

reliance . The proposed rule has the potential to: 

-Limit the ability of industrial water users holding NPDES permits to utilize reclaimed water in lieu of groundwater, even 

in cases where use of reclaimed water results in a net improvement to nutrient levels. 

-Limit the ability to transfer reclaimed water between sub-basins, as an offset to groundwater use, even when that use 

results in a net improvement to nutrient levels. 

-Impact the ability of non-point source (agricultural/residential) dischargers to use reclaimed water even when that use 

results in a net reduction in nutrient levels. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2039
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1869-1.001.006 

Author Name: Fumero J. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley on behalf of Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. 

• According to the EPA, the Numeric Nutrient Criteria will apply to all "waters of the United States." However, it has 

been reported that the water quality data that was utilized to develop the proposed criteria included samples collected 

from waters that do not meet the definition of "waters of the United States" as defined by the Clean Water Act and 40 

CFR 230.3(s). It is inappropriate for EPA to impose water quality standards on "waters of the United States" when the 

data that was used to develop the criteria was taken from sources that do not meet the definition. 

Comment ID 1869-1.001.010 

Author Name: Fumero J. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley on behalf of Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. 

Comments Pertaining to Reclaimed Water 

• The Numeric Nutrient Criteria provide great detail into the regulation of point source discharges as they are the easiest 

to identify and regulate. However, the proposed rule is not clear as to how it will be implemented as it relates to nonpoint sources. As BSU does not directly discharge any of its reclaimed water into waters of the United States or the 

State of Florida, the reclaimed water it produces would not be considered a point source. BSU requests more direction 

from EPA on implementation ofthe Numeric Nutrient Criteria as it relates to non-point sources. 

• Utilization of reclaimed water conserves natural resources by reusing treated effluent rather than using ground or 

surface water sources for irrigation purposes. Utilities and local governments throughout the State of Florida, including 

BSU, have spent millions of dollars on advanced wastewater treatment facilities and infrastructure improvements to 

provide reclaimed water as a viable alternative water supply. It is not truly known whether technology exists to treat 

reclaimed water to the levels mandated by the Numeric Nutrient Criteria. 

• Reclaimed water customers rely on the nutrients found in reclaimed water and have, at times, been able to stop using 

fertilizer altogether. To require that reclaimed water meet such strict nutrient limitations would force golf courses and 

other landscape irrigators to once again start using greater amounts of fertilizer, and result in potentially greater, 

unintended adverse environmental consequences. 

• Direct land application of reclaimed water or alternative storage options, such as storage tanks or lined ponds, would 

not be an option if wastewater treatment facility operating permits require all reclaimed water to meet the proposed 

standards. 

Comment ID 1888-1.001.005 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2040
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of the Wiregrass Ranch Inc. 

At this point in time, Wiregrass is in the middle of completing a utility service agreement which will provide reclaimed 

water from Pasco County to irrigate landscape features on residential and commercial properties. Since Wiregrass is 

located in a water restricted area of the Southwest Florida Water Management District ("District"), the use of reclaimed 

water is encouraged and in fact mandated in lieu of the use of groundwater, if feasible. However, the proposed rules 

would preclude Wiregrass from taking reclaimed water with the draconian criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus being 

contemplated by the EPA. This, no doubt, will be the similar conclusion of both agriculturalists and developers 

throughout the State of Florida that will cease using reclaimed water in order to ensure they do not add additional 

nitrogen or phosphorus to the landscape for which they would be responsible for removing. 

Wiregrass, as an agriculturalist, rancher and developer, is suffering during this time period of economic recession. The 

timing of a shift of environmental regulation from state control to federal control and much higher cost is an unwise 

policy choice by the EPA. 

Comment ID 1892-1.001.002 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

The State of Florida both statutorily and through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") has a 

vision for the widespread use of reuse water throughout the state. The vision of reclaimed water being used efficiently 

and effectively to conserve potable quality water and to augment available water supplies has been implemented over 

the last 20 years. By 2006, the success of the vision resulted in Florida being the first recipient of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency's Water Efficiency Leader ("WEL") Award for Florida's Water Reuse Program. 

Florida's Water Reuse Program was recognized for outstanding leadership in water stewardship. Use of reclaimed 

water has been shown to be an effective means of conserving drinking water resources. 

From EPA press release recognizing Florida' water reuse program: 

"Florida's Water Reuse Program is a model for efficient use of water on a statewide level. The state's comprehensive 

program includes a wide variety of elements, ranging from state regulations to public outreach and reuse feasibility 

studies. As of 2005, 41% of all wastewater in Florida was treated for reuse, saving over 331 million gallons per day 

while watering residential lawns, golf courses, and parks." � 

In 2007, Florida led the nation in reuse, using about 664 million gallons a day (mgd) of reclaimed water to for a 

beneficial purpose. A total of 475 large domestic wastewater treatment facilities made reclaimed water available for 

reuse. These facilities served 432 reuse systems for a wide range of beneficial uses, including irrigation of over 201,000 

residential lawns, 462 golf courses, 572 parks, and 251 schools. � 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2041
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1892-1.001.005 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

The point is, reclaimed water is a lynch pin in the water supply in the State of Florida and in the four county region that 

encompasses the Authority. No advance water treatment process for wastewater in Florida can meet the proposed EPA 

numeric nutrient criteria as currently proposed. In addition, only 3% of the wastewater treatment facilities in Florida are 

at or above advanced wastewater treatment levels. The application of reuse water for agriculture, industry and 

landscape irrigation for residential and commercial sites, will increase nutrient loading to surface waters in the Peace 

River Basin area. The reuse nonpoint source discharge were not considered in the EPA Sparrow Model. This is likely to 

result in an underestimate of the loadings for reuse where reuse practices are prevalent. In the Tampa Bay Watershed, 

a large proportion of domestic wastewater is used for reuse and the loadings from these sources have been estimated 

in the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. See the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium Partnership for Progress 

Comments submitted March 8, 2010, Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 incorporated and included herein. Similar 

source loadings have also been estimated for Charlotte Harbor Estuary Program and the Sarasota National Estuary 

Program Watersheds within the Authority's region. EPA's failure to recognize or distinguish between the forms of 

nitrogen and grouping all nitrogen species under the total nitrogen label, ignores the long-standing practice of 

developing a sound scientific rational for environmental regulations and for setting discharge limits. This will limit the 

use of reclaim water. 

The proposed numeric nutrient criteria will have an immediate and detrimental impact to Florida's reclaimed water 

program due to concerns with the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen contributing to a perceived impairment. � 

Because of the over-reaching impacts of poorly developed and rapidly constructed numeric nutrient criteria, water 

supply utilities in Florida, who provide 664 million gallon per day of reclaimed water to offset potable demand will be 

curtailed. This will necessitate an increased demand of high quality water for irrigation purposes from water suppliers, 

including the Authority. This will also increase the impact on Florida's stressed drinking water resources. Within the 

Authority alone, these new criteria could prelude the use of reclaimed water and increase the demand for water supply 

from the Authority by 4.3 million gallons per day. The cost of the development of this new water source would be paid 

by the utility customers of the region. 

Comment ID 1927.001.002 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

In my April 8, 2010 letter, I stated that the Utilities Department had collected samples from some of the wells that 

indicated phosphorous levels were higher than the proposed EPA standards. The concern was an interpretation that the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2042
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

entire surficial aquifer, including the Biscayne zone from which potable water supply is withdrawn, could be considered 

a source of impairment. The following results for sampling of Nitrogen and Phosphorous of raw water by our Utilities 

Department dates back to 2005 . The wells where the samples were collected are located in the southern half of Palm 

Beach County (just south of Okeechobee Blvd. to the Delray Beach and are 75-185 feet deep. The lab test results for 

Phosphorous in the raw ground water pulled up from several of the County's wells range from 0.02-0.07 mg/1 

depending on the date and location sampled. The Nitrogen concentrations for the raw water in these same wells range 

from 0.80- 2.63 mg/1. Copies of the laboratory results can be provided if needed. As can be seen, the upper limit of the 

raw water results from these wells is considerably above the proposed EPA standards for both of these parameters . 

In addition, the finished water from one of the County's water treatment plants, WTP#8 just south of Okeechobee Blvd. 

in central Palm Beach County, has a phosphorous concentration of 0.15 mg/1 and a Nitrogen concentration range of 1 

.50-2.60 mg/1. This concentration that is about three and a half times above the proposed EPA ,standards and the 

Nitrogen level is about 62% higher . However, these levels meet safe drinking water standards for public consumption. 

The finished water from this plant is typical for the Palm Beach County Utility Department. The Phosphorous and 

Nitrogen levels are higher in the finished water than in the raw water due to phosphate and ammonia additives that help 

reduce calcium scaling in the treatment system and disinfection byproducts, such as THMs, in the piping system. The 

reduction of scaling in the treatment plant filters and disinfection byproducts in the distribution piping are major issues 

for utilities in order to maintain the plants and meet Health Department water quality criteria. Until alternative 

technologies without Phosphorous or Nitrogen are proven to address these issues, the addition of the additives will be a 

continued utility practice. This demonstrates a conflict between regulations for public health and those for the 

environment. 

In conclusion, finished potable water may not meet EPA criteria due to Phosphorous and Nitrogen levels in raw water 

and treatment additives. Analysis of two leading bottled waters sold in Florida shows that one of the two also has higher 

Nitrogen levels than the proposed EPA criteria. This can represent a nonpoint source of Phosphorous and Nitrogen 

within a watershed when water could be used for irrigation, car washing, or a multitude of outdoor uses; and eventually 

makes its way into canals . There are no provisions within the proposed standards to account for this scenario . Such 

uses should be considered exempt from the proposed EPA criteria. 

Should you have any questions concerning this data, please call me at (561) 355- 4600. 

Comment ID 1946.001.002 

Author Name: Sheppard M. 

Organization: 

In March 2010 Schrader Manatee Ranch developer of Lakewood Ranch, brought a request to change the Manatee 

Comprehensive Plan to allow the use of reclaimed water from our sewers on the landscaping of their projects in the 

Lake Evers Reservoir. Imagine the footprint to take out of the prohibited use of reclaimed water matches the plans of 

SMR to build a small city. 

In the mid eighties The City of Bradenton and Manatee County assembled water experts to see if reclaimed water 

should be allowed to be used on golf courses, community landscaping and individual lawns within the watershed of the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2043
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Braden River upstream of the berm that creates Lake Evers. Then the requirement that none be used was put in the 

1989 Manatee County comprehensive Plan. 

The City of Bradenton wants a place to send their treated water. The City and applicant had an assortment of "experts" 

to support the idea that current regulations were enough protection for the ground water and the Braden River. These 

experts provided no research to prove that current regulations provide sufficient treatment. The Planning Commission 

and County Commission simply accepted the assertion that the current regulations provide sufficient protection for the 

ground and surface waters. 

Comment ID 2018-1.001.003 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

In addition, the adoption and enforcement of the proposed standards will have consequences which are adverse to 

those of the State of Florida and thereby the City, in the protection of its water resources, namely the limitations which 

will be placed on the use of reclaimed water. These concerns regarding the limitations on the use of reclaimed water 

have also been submitted by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) in whose jurisdiction the 

City is located. 

Comment ID 2018-6.001.005 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

17. EPA's defmition of a lake differs from FDEP's. This discrepancy may result in difficulties in the implementation of the 

proposed criteria. The definition of a lake as currently stated will include isolated freshwater wetlands which have a 

distinctly different ecology than a Florida lake. It is recommended that EPA revise the definition to eliminate the potential 

for wetlands to be classified as lakes in Florida. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.015 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

1.1.1. Definition of Lake. 

The proposed rule exacerbates an already impossible task by failing to recognize Florida's long-standing definition of a 

lake as requiring a minimum of two (2) acres of open water (i.e., without emergent vegetation). The State uses the 2­

acre threshold to differentiate lakes and ponds from wetland systems, which have vastly different water quality 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2044
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

expectations.[10] EPA's proposed rule defines a lake as "a freshwater water body that is not a stream or other 

watercourse with some open contiguous water free from emergent vegetation." Applied literally, wetlands, stormwater 

treatment ponds, wastewater treatment ponds and even backyard fish ponds could fall within the EPA definition. EPA 

should adopt the "2 acres of open water" developed by State scientists familiar with Florida lakes systems as a 

minimum threshold. The Agency should also clarify that lakes do not include wetland systems or upland flood water 

areas that are: subject to periodic inundation. Finally, the Agency should add language that clearly excludes stormwater 

and wastewater treatment ponds from EPA's definition of lakes. [11] 

[10] Review ofProposed Criteria for the Protection ofLakes (Draft), Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, March 16,2010. 

[11] 40 C.F.R. § 13I.lO(a) prohibits "waste assimilation" as a designated use which may be translated to the: rule of 

thumb "waters cannot be treatment and treatment cannot be waters." Therefore, it is important that stormwater and 

wastewater treatment ponds are distinguished as not being "waters" subject to criteria. See" also, § 373.4142, Fla. Stat. 

(State surface water quality standards not applicable in stormwater treatment ponds). 

Response 

Comment IDs: 0491-1.001.004, 0596.001.005, 0640.001.007, 0668.001.005, 0713.001.003, 0713.001.006, 0716.001.003, 

0734.001.004, 0734.001.009, 0753.001.006, 0754.001.006, 0770.001.001, 0825.001.002, 0843.001.004, 0863.001.004, 

0935.001.005, 0945.001.003, 0978-1.001.002, 1004.001.003, 1008.001.001, 1010.001.005, 1011.001.015, 1091.001.008, 1098­

3.001.011, 1137.001.005, 1230.001.009, 1254.001.006, 1256.001.004, 1264.001.005, 1291-1.001.002, 1298-1.001.006, 1348­

1.001.006, 1348-1.001.013, 1348-1.001.014, 1360-1.001.006, 1360-1.001.007, 1364-1.001.012, 1370-1.001.007, 1370-1.001.046, 

1416-1.001.027, 1462-1.001.012, 1462-1.001.013, 1462-1.001.014, 1475-1.001.014, 1475-1.001.015, 1475-1.001.016, 1475­

1.001.019, 1476-2.001.016, 1479-1.001.005, 1479-1.001.010, 1550.001.006, 1617-1.001.005, 1645-1.001.002, 1667-1.001.002, 

1712-1.001.003, 1729.001.017, 1731-1.001.007, 1748-1.001.005, 1759-1.001.002, 1759-1.001.007, 1769-1.001.003, 1769­

1.001.033, 1770-1.001.021, 1770-1.001.057, 1771-1.001.028, 1771-1.001.067, 1772-1.001.022, 1772-1.001.060, 1773-1.001.025, 

1773-1.001.060, 1774-1.001.025, 1778-1.001.007, 1778-1.001.012, 1778-1.001.014, 1778-1.001.018, 1780-1.001.006, 1782­

1.001.036, 1782-1.001.037, 1784-1.001.005, 1784-1.001.030, 1784-1.001.032, 1785-1.001.007, 1785-1.001.016, 1805-1.001.001, 

1811-1.001.007, 1811-1.001.010, 1832-1.001.002, 1832-1.001.005, 1836.001.008, 1836.001.048, 1869-1.001.010, 1888-1.001.005, 

1892-1.001.002, 1892-1.001.005, 2018-1.001.003 

Response: EPA recognizes the concern of the commenters about the application of the numeric nutrient criteria to reclaimed water. 

EPA notes that numeric nutrient criteria will apply to all Class I and Class III inland surface waters as designated by FDEP. Current 

Florida regulations would apply with respect to stormwater treatment or reclamation ponds that are designated as Class I or III. 

Similarly, reclaimed water that is used for irrigation and other surface applications would be subject to any current FDEP 

regulations, such as reasonable assurance requirements, that apply. See the response to comments grouped in 1b below for 

additional information on impacts to industrial sources. 

Comment ID: 0852.001.003 

Response: FDEP administers the Florida regulations pertaining to reuse and discharges from industrial facilities through the NPDES 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2045
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

program, if applicable. 

Comment IDs: 1230.001.009, 1811-1.001.008, 1836.001.048 

Response: EPA notes that industrial dischargers would be subject to any applicable NPDES discharge requirements, including 

technology and water quality based effluent limitations. FDEP administers the Florida regulations pertaining to reuse and 

discharges from industrial facilities through the NPDES program, if applicable. See also the response to the comments grouped in 1 

above. 

Comment IDs: 0884.001.015, 1011.001.006, 1041.001.003, 1475-1.001.012, 2018-6.001.005, 2233-1.001.015 

Response: EPA’s final rule applies to certain waters of the United States in the State of Florida, as defined in section I.B of the 

preamble. The rule applies to Class I and Class III lakes and springs throughout Florida, and Class I and Class III flowing waters 

(e.g., rivers, streams, canals, etc.) located outside of the South Florida Region. If privately-owned waters in Florida are waters of 

the United States, the applicable numeric criteria for those types of waters would apply. 

Comment IDs: 1370-1.001.025, 1370-1.001.037, 1370-1.001.038, 1370-1.001.056, 1617-1.001.006, 1642-1.001.005 

Response: EPA’s final rule applies to certain waters of the United States in the State of Florida, as defined in section I.B of the 

preamble. The rule applies to Class I and Class III lakes and springs throughout Florida, and Class I and Class III flowing waters 

(e.g., rivers, streams, canals, etc.) located outside of the South Florida Region. If privately-owned waters in Florida are waters of the 

United States, the applicable numeric criteria for those types of waters would apply. 

Comment IDs: 1475-1.001.011, 1475-1.001.013, 1778-1.001.010, 1778-1.001.015 

Response: EPA notes the importance of water reuse/reclamation in Florida and thanks the commenters for illustrating the 

effectiveness of on and off site reuse storage and treatment systems. EPA’s final rule applies to certain waters of the United States 

in the State of Florida, as defined in section I.B of the preamble. The rule applies to Class I and Class III lakes and springs 

throughout Florida, and Class I and Class III flowing waters (e.g., rivers, streams, canals, etc.) located outside of the South Florida 

Region. 

Comment ID: 1059.001.001 

Response: EPA’s final rule applies to certain waters of the United States in the State of Florida, as defined in section I.B of the 

preamble. The rule applies to Class I and Class III lakes and springs throughout Florida, and Class I and Class III flowing waters 

(e.g., rivers, streams, canals, etc.) located outside of the South Florida Region. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2046
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment IDs: 0583.001.001, 0589.001.008, 0600.001.001, 0650.001.006, 0753.001.004, 1261-1.001.004, 1355-1.001.003, 1355­

1.001.011, 1364-1.001.005, 1482-1.001.028, 1642-1.001.005, 1645-1.001.006, 1774-1.001.005, 1774-1.001.038, 1788-1.001.005 

Response: EPA’s final rule applies to certain waters of the United States in the State of Florida, as defined in section I.B of the 

preamble. The rule applies to Class I and Class III lakes and springs throughout Florida, and Class I and Class III flowing waters 

(e.g., rivers, streams, canals, etc.) located outside of the South Florida Region. If privately-owned waters in Florida are waters of 

the United States, the applicable numeric criteria for those types of waters would apply. 

Comment ID: 1008.001.003 

Response: EPA’s final rule applies to certain waters of the United States in the State of Florida, as defined in section I.B of the 

preamble. The rule applies to Class I and Class III lakes and springs throughout Florida, and Class I and Class III flowing waters 

(e.g., rivers, streams, canals, etc.) located outside of the South Florida Region, including waterways that are shared by multiple 

entities. If privately-owned waters in Florida are waters of the United States, the applicable numeric criteria for those types of 

waters would apply. 

Comment IDs: 1355-2.001.089, 1559.001.006 

Response: EPA disagrees with comments that canals should be discriminated from streams for the purposes of this rule given 

existing regulatory definitions. The criteria being established by EPA apply to all Class I and III waters as designated by the State. 

The State of Florida has not identified any difference in the current Class I or Class III designated uses for canals and streams or 

channelized and natural channel portions of streams or rivers. In this rulemaking, EPA is translating FDEPs current narrative 

nutrient criterion applicable to these designated use classes into numeric criteria. When the State has made no distinction in the 

designated use class of canals and streams, then it is not appropriate for EPA to make a distinction in the numeric translation of the 

protective narrative criterion. 

Comment ID: 1778-1.001.011 

Response: EPA understands the importance of reclaimed water use in Florida. EPA notes that numeric nutrient criteria will apply to 

all Class I and Class III inland surface waters as designated by FDEP. Additionally, EPA defines the waters in Florida for which 

the regulations apply in section I.B. The commenter is directed to FDEP concerning the use of mixing zones and zones of discharge. 

Comment IDs: 1482-1.001.011, 1482-1.001.045 

Response: EPA’s final rule applies to certain waters of the United States in the State of Florida, as defined in section I.B of the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2047
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

preamble. The rule applies to Class I and Class III lakes and springs throughout Florida, and Class I and Class III flowing waters 

(e.g., rivers, streams, canals, etc.) located outside of the South Florida Region. EPA notes that the Site-Specific Alternative Criteria 

process established in the final rule is one tool that can be used to provide site-specific protection to waters such as those identified 

by the commenter. 

Comment IDs: 0934.001.004, 1769-1.001.035, 1770-1.001.059, 1771-1.001.069, 1772-1.001.062, 1927.001.002 

Response: EPA’s final rule applies to certain waters of the United States in the State of Florida, as defined in section I.B of the 

preamble. The rule applies to Class I and Class III lakes and springs throughout Florida, and Class I and Class III flowing waters 

(e.g., rivers, streams, canals, etc.) located outside of the South Florida Region. EPA also notes that potable water dischargers would 

be subject to any applicable NPDES discharge requirements. FDEP administers the Florida regulations pertaining to reuse and 

discharges from water treatment facilities through the NPDES program, if applicable. 

Comment IDs: 0656.001.004, 1530.001.018, 1530.001.032, 1530.001.051, 1795-1.001.004 

Response: EPA notes that wastewater treatment facility dischargers would be subject to any applicable NPDES discharge 

requirements, including technology and water quality based effluent limitations. FDEP administers the Florida regulations 

pertaining to reuse and discharges from wastewater treatment facilities through the NPDES program, if applicable. As noted above, 

EPA recognizes the importance of water reuse and reclamation in Florida. EPA notes that the Site-Specific Alternative Criteria 

process established in the final rule may be one tool that can be used to provide site-specific flexibility to waters such as those 

identified by the commenters. 

Comment IDs: 0740.001.005, 0740.001.006, 0942.001.002, 0985.001.001, 130.001.005 

Response: This final rule establishes numeric criteria to translate Florida's existing narrative nutrient criterion to protect Class I and 

Class III lakes and flowing waters. The regulation does not explicitly apply to applications of biosolids; but EPA supports the 

proper storage and disposal of all biosolids. EPA does point out as a general matter that the Agency has issued comprehensive 

federal regulations governing the management of biosolids at 40 CFR part 503, including regulations governing land application of 

biosolids, upon which State regulations are based. The State of Florida has in its existing regulations a 1000 foot setback buffer 

aimed at protecting drinking water reservoirs from any potential runoff. State and local governments make the decision whether to 

recycle the biosolids as a fertilizer, incinerate it or bury it in a landfill. EPA believes the choice is a local one, as long as the local 

decision complies with EPA's standards and requirements under the CWA. The Agency could not provide a response to the reports 

and letter submitted with these comments, because there was insufficient context or guidance in how it should consider the 

information. 

Comment IDs: 0748.001.004, 0753.001.003, 1370-1.001.004, 1748-1.001.007 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2048
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Response: As noted above, EPA recognizes the importance of water reuse and reclamation in Florida. EPA’s final rule applies to 

certain waters of the United States in the State of Florida, as defined in section I.B of the preamble. The rule applies to Class I and 

Class III lakes and springs throughout Florida, and Class I and Class III flowing waters (e.g., rivers, streams, canals, etc.) located 

outside of the South Florida Region. EPA also notes that intermittent dischargers would be subject to any applicable NPDES 

discharge requirements, including technology and water quality based effluent limitations. FDEP administers the Florida 

regulations pertaining to reuse and discharges from wastewater treatment facilities through the NPDES program, if applicable. 

Comment IDs: 0804.001.004, 1075.001.007, 1370-1.001.044 

Response: There is flexibility in the implementation of various aspects of the Clean Water Act to allow FDEP latitude in developing 

implementation activities that include loading based allocations in NPDES permits. 

Comment ID: 0816.001.005 

Response: This regulation applies to numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s inland flowing waters. Other parameters in Chapter 62 of 

Florida Administrative Code are not affected by this regulation. 

Comment IDs: 0854.001.003, 1049.001.003, 1056.001.004, 1080.001.003, 1464-2.001.021, 1946.001.002 

Response: EPA supports clean water and pollution controls. Comments on the impacts of deep well injection, the use of reclaimed 

water, and other pollutants in reclaimed water on water quality in Florida are outside of the scope of the regulation. EPA notes the 

concern about the growth of cyanobacteria and the toxins it can produce, which is one of the negative impacts of nutrient pollution 

this regulation strives to reduce. EPA also appreciates the examples of alternative treatment systems for reducing nutrients and 

explanations of pollution prevention programs such as fertilizer ordinances. 

Comment ID: 0909.001.001 

Response: EPA refers the commenter to the preamble and TSD for more information about the derivation of specific criteria values 

for the different waterbodies subject to the rule. 

Comment IDs: 0896-2.001.012, 1364-1.001.019, 1785-1.001.020 

Response: EPA’s final rule applies to certain waters of the United States in the State of Florida, as defined in section I.B of the 

preamble. The rule applies to Class I and Class III lakes and springs throughout Florida, and Class I and Class III flowing waters 

(e.g., rivers, streams, canals, etc.) located outside of the South Florida Region. EPA has defined the terms: lakes, lakes and flowing 

waters, predominantly fresh waters, spring, stream, surface water in part 131.43 (b), based on definitions developed by FDEP. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2049
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment IDs: 1475-1.001.005, 1778-1.001.004 

Response: EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including DPVs for estuaries, by 

November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA 

encourages commenters review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding DPVs for estuarine 

waters 

Comment IDs: 1352-1.001.071, 1761-3.001.060, 1769-1.001.020, 1770-1.001.044, 1771-1.001.054, 1772-1.001.048, 1773­

1.001.049, 1777-2.001.032, 1805-3.001.045 

Response: EPA has changed the definition of springs to be consistent with common definitions used in Florida (see section I.B of 

the preamble). Additionally, EPA removed the reference and applicability of the spring criteria to spring runs. 

Comment IDs: 1370-1.001.036, 1370-1.001.057, 1370-1.001.058 

Response: EPA notes this consideration for development of technology based standards. However, as noted in the preamble section 

II.A - II.D, there are many sources of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that can be reduced with the combination of numeric 

criteria and the mix of pollution control programs in Florida. 

Comment IDs: 1769-1.001.014, 1770-1.001.034, 1771-1.001.043, 1772-1.001.037, 1773-1.001.038 

Response: EPA evaluated several approaches to classifying streams. Please refer to the preamble section III and the TSD for more 

detailed explanations. 

Comment ID: 1869-1.001.006 

Response: EPA based its decisions on sound science and the use of the best available data. See the TSD for more information and 

descriptions of the data sources and analyses performed by EPA. 

Comment ID: 1255.001.010 

Response: Estuaries like Tampa Bay will not be subject to this regulation. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s 

estuarine and coastal waters, including DPVs for estuaries, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves 

forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2050
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

and to submit comments regarding DPVs for estuarine waters. 

III.A.2 - BACKGROUND ON EPA’S DERIVATION OF PROPOSED 

NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA’S 

LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS 

Comment ID 0560-1.001.002 

Author Name: Campbell T. 

Organization: Florida Strawberry Growers Association 

The Agency's proposed standards will require Florida to clean the water entering from other states, has no visible 

means of implementation within southern canals without compromising flood control systems, and has flawed scientific 

basis in numerous areas - all well addressed in great detail by the expert comments of the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

Comment ID 0579.001.001 

Author Name: Meinhardt N. 

Organization: 

I do not believe the Fed EPA has enough true accurate scientific or economic data to set any standards for Florida. I 

think the FDEP has spent a lot of time and money to come up with their findings. I believe that the EPA is relying on 

unproven scientific data just like Gore's Climate Change fiasco. This organization was created to protect the 

environment but now I believe is abusing it's powers Your actions lately is starting to reflect negatively in the eyes of the 

people. 

Comment ID 0584-1.001.001 

Author Name: Holly C. 

Organization: Florida Association of Counties 

The Florida Association of Counties (FAC) is writing to express our concern with the above-referenced proposed rule. 

While FAC supports the development of science-based numeric nutrient criteria, it is questionable at best as to whether 

this complex rule can be developed in such a short timeframe in a scientific way, and in a way that properly balances 

the economic impact with environmental protection. 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in conjunction with Florida's local governments, has 

collected a significant amount of water quality data, much more than any other state. This is a good start in working 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2051
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

toward numeric criteria. However, the methodologies being used to derive the numbers appear to be flawed. 

Comment ID 0586.001.002 

Author Name: Walden M.
 

Organization: Alliance of Delray Residential Associations, Inc.
 

The Alliance of Delray understands that the EPA is in the process of setting numeric nutrient water quality criteria for 

Florida. We can all agree that there is a water quality problem in Florida that needs to be rectified. However, the 

Alliance of Delray wants to share our deep concern that the EPA set numeric values based upon scientific research and 

that they consult with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to ensure that numeric data specific to Florida 

and our unique ecosystem is utilized. 

Comment ID 0589.001.003 

Author Name: Foy J.
 

Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc.
 

3. Establishment of appropriate water quality criteria including NNC is important. These criteria may very well require 

expenditures of significant public monies. However, these criteria need to be well founded as no one can afford wasting 

our taxes and efforts on unjustified criteria. 

Comment ID 0589.001.011 

Author Name: Foy J.
 

Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc.
 

11. In Palm Beach when all of the WBIDs that are listed as impaired or those lacking data are eliminated, there is little 

left to establish criteria. The NNC therefore loses relevance in Palm Beach County. 

Comment ID 0589.001.026 

Author Name: Foy J.
 

Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc.
 

11. No further explanation needed as the remaining data lacks relevance to Palm Beach County. [See comment 

0589.001.011 for context]. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2052
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0596.001.003 

Author Name: Flowers J. 

Organization: City of Maitland 

Phosphorus Levels are not Scientifically Measured 

The levels of total phosphorus that are to be used as the baseline criteria are at the minimum detection limit for most of 

the data that was used. This means it is below the practical quantitation level. Such data are inherently flawed and 

should never be used quantitatively. 

Comment ID 0597.001.002 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

WE, LIKE OTHERS, SUPPORT SCIENTIFIC-BASED NUMERIC CRITERIA AND THE EPA HAS USED HUNDREDS 

OF THOUSANDS OF FLORIDA WATER QUALITY SAMPLES THAT IT OBTAINED FROM DEP IN CREATING 

THESE PROPOSED CRITERIA. 

Comment ID 0601.001.003 

Author Name: Kelley H. 

Organization: 

2. There is no clear science behind the rules. The numeric criteria provide for Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) 

which are ridiculously low and there is no scientific data to back up the extremely low MCLs for nitrates. 

Comment ID 0611.001.002 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

We, like others, support science-based numeric criteria and the EPA has used over 80,000 water quality samples that it 

obtained from DEP in creating these proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 0613.001.003 

Author Name: Musgrove M. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2053
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation 

We believe the data gathered by the Florida Department of Enviromnental Protection - 800,000 nutrient-related data 

points on Florida waters - are sufficient to establish baseline and site-specific nutrient standards for Florida's waters . 

The data also make the case that it is necessary to do so, now. 

Comment ID 0620.001.003 

Author Name: Kelly H. 

Organization: Fort Walton Beach Tea Party 

There is no clear science behind the rules. The numeric criteria contained for maximum containment levels are 

ridiculously low, and there is no scientific data to back up the extremely lows MCLs for nitrates. 

Comment ID 0620.001.008 

Author Name: Kelly H. 

Organization: Fort Walton Beach Tea Party 

In the Florida Panhandle we are actually punished with these regulations for doing a good job of protecting our surface 

waters by having extremely strict MCLs; in other words, you will actually punish you for having the cleanest water in the 

state, and we will have to improve on that because based on this flawed science, the EPA believes that other regions in 

Florida should be treated more leniently. 

Comment ID 0621.001.003 

Author Name: Kaplan M. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Because the proposed rule relies on flawed science, and the proposed numeric nutrient criteria simply do not correlate. 

I suspect that you'll hear a litany of those flaws over the coming day. To highlight just to few, pristine streams identified 

by Florida's DEP are characterized using the proposed data, biologically healthy lake with productive fish populations 

would now be characterized impaired; river and stream approach disregard to year, much of site-specific data collected 

by TEP stakeholders and estuary programs and modeling techniques have an unacceptable margin of error and have 

not been invented for these type of specific watershed types of applications. 

We're working with independent experts to provide you the type of comments that you have solicited and technical 

concrete and scientifically well-grounded solutions to the challenges that your rule narrative seems to acknowledge on 

inherent setting of nutrient criteria. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2054
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

So, in our written comments you can expect us to address the proper instream analogy and downstream protective 

values that should be met, and scientific base in which for doing so; the flaws we see in EPA's methodology and how 

Mosaic believes it could be fixed; specific suggestions to make sure the different forms of the much-needed flexibility 

provide under the rule actually work, and how to make good use of all that's been learned in and been accomplished in 

TMDL necessary programs. 

It is achievable and necessary that the current numeric nutrient criteria be protective of the environment without 

inflecting major economic injuries on Florida's people. Our goals is to help EPA and DEP to achieve true environmental 

protection based on sound science and site-specific conditions so that the challenging burden of compliance are 

matched with the true needs of receiving works. 

Again, thank you for your time and professionalism. And I really do hope you'll take the comments as far as DEP and all 

the stakeholders you're going to hear over the next few days and bring back a scientifically sound and practical 

approach. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0623.001.003 

Author Name: Null M. 

Organization: City of Green Cove Springs 

And whereas the City maintains that the USEPA's recommended criteria increase to seven as they're applied to the City 

are not scientifically defensible in that they are not the result of scientific analysis necessary to establish those response 

relationship; whereas papers from and related to case number, 400324-RHWCS make clear that the EPA is litigation 

strategy and not based upon any scientific evidence on the regions surrounding the City. 

Comment ID 0623.001.006 

Author Name: Null M. 

Organization: City of Green Cove Springs 

The City Council opposes the USEPA promulgating numeric nutrient criteria to increase to seven; that it's not 

scientifically defensible and/or are the result of litigation strategy. 

Comment ID 0627.001.001 

Author Name: Stephens N. 

Organization: Manufacturers Association of Florida, the Florida Minerals and Chemistry Counsel, and the Florida Poultry 

Federation 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2055
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

This declaration was not supported by scientific analysis. A real necessity determination would have included a 

demonstration that numeric nutrient criteria were actually necessary to achieve clearly defined water quality objectives. 

EPA's proposal acknowledges that water quality objectives in Florida can be achieved through continued 

implementation of total maximum daily load program. 

Comment ID 0640.001.002 

Author Name: Dudley S. 

Organization: Florida League of Cities in Tallahassee 

We also believe that bad science makes for bad public policy. And we believe the recommendations for numeric 

nutrient criteria are in fact bad science, if they can be considered science at all. We might suggest science fiction might 

be the more appropriate term. EPA admits that some of its own documents that nutrients for flowing waters are not 

based on biological responses to nutrients. Then the convoluted model to protect downstream uses is overlayed on top 

of that, and to such a degree the numbers become essentially impossible for most of the people out here that are 

speaking -- impossible for them to try and meet. The result of this bad science is an unrealistic and unreasonably low 

set of numeric values below which all water bodies would be considered impaired without having any consistent 

adverse biological responses having been on received by the proposed target. Watershed methodology will ultimately 

cause Florida water bodies including those that show now impacts associated with impact solution to be deemed 

impaired, and thus subject to recovery efforts by state or local governments. 

Comment ID 0643.001.005 

Author Name: Poppell R. 

Organization: Florida House of Representatives Natural Resource Appropriations Committee 

As a matter of fact, I noticed when Mr. King was speaking of it, the criteria of which we're meeting here today and 

evaluating came most from Florida. So it makes me sort of wonder if we're our friends -- if we're our friend or our enemy 

by providing this. However, we want this to be used in a positive manner. 

Comment ID 0644.001.003 

Author Name: Janazzo J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Commissioners 

So far today, we've heard Florida has in place a strong water quality program. We've heard firsthand accounts of how 

the system is working, has been working and will continue to be working when it's utilized properly. We've heard it's not 

perfect but it has improved our water dramatically and continues to work for Florida. We've heard the science behind 

the proposed rule is questioned by a wide range of professional Floridians, all who have the best interest of our future in 

mind. And I guess I have to question 15-year old photos coming from the EPA. I would expect a little more current data 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2056
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

than that. 

Comment ID 0645.001.003 

Author Name: Lackemacher P. 

Organization: Bay County Utility Services 

Presently, these same Florida wastewater treatment plants are generally meeting the most stringent effluent water 

quality standards in the nation, as Mr. King talked about. In other words, we are already well regulated and doing much 

to reduce nutrients in our effluent. There has been an overabundance of well-based scientific and technical arguments 

presented to EPA that shows their methodology is just plain wrong. I was happy to hear from Mr. Silva that he wants to 

look at this science. That's good. EPA knows that the SPARROW model it's using is not great. And, in fact, DEP flat out 

said they wanted data and input from as many sources as possible because, and I quote, they couldn't afford to 

properly study these issues. So, Mr. Keating, I say to you, we don't have the data that you think. Given these facts, the 

environmental benefits are questionable at best. EPA's milestones are also unrealistic and cannot be met. A similar 

initiative, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Agreement that was discussed here by one of you, was undertaken 

originally in 1983 with a target date of 2010. They've had 27 years. It was a four tier program. They've gotten to tier two. 

Total nitrogen is only down to eight. Their goal was three. EPA has given Florida virtually no time. For Bay County, the 

fact is that presently no AWT in Florida can meet the proposed EPA values. There's 65 or 3 percent of the treatment 

facilities are AWTs, Bay County has one. EPA's methodology is fundamentally flawed and suffers from a severe lack of 

scientific basis, specifically for the Panhandle region where roughly 76 percent of the background waters that are not 

affected by human activity will be deemed impaired regardless of direct discharge. This fact alone makes EPA's 

proposed values ridiculous. Bay County encompasses approximately 550 thousand acres with an average annual 

rainfall of 65 inches. In short, there is approximately eight trillion gallons of runoff. For total nitrogen alone, the average 

total nitrogen is 0.8 milligrams per liter, which equates to 26,000 tons per year. Bay County estimates our MS4 systems 

will handle approximately 135 billion gallons per year. For total nitrogen alone, assuming we remove the entire total 

nitrogen and runoff through these systems, we will only reduce the total nitrogen load by 11 tons per year, less than four 

tenths of one percent. What is the point? 

Comment ID 0646.001.007 

Author Name: Griswold R. 

Organization: Destin Water Users 

What is most important is that the new rule is not protective of the waters in Florida. It totally discounts the fact that 

some level of nutrients is needed which may or may not be higher than the limits being imposed. If all waters were to 

achieve the limits noted, it is certain that many waters would be degraded in their current use. 

Comment ID 0651.001.004 

Author Name: Ghent R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2057
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: CF Industries 

Over the past two years, both water quality and water clarity goals were met in all four major bay segments for the first 

time since recordkeeping began in 1974. The tangible result of that success is more sea grass growing in the Bay than 

seen since 1950, an increase of 3,480 acres since 1999. Most importantly, it's the partnership and the willingness of 

members to work together that has made the difference, according to Holly Greening, Executive Director of the estuary 

program. We also have concerns that environmental scientists in the State of Florida have a serious disagreement with 

the EPA approach. To start with, the State of Florida and DEP, and to quote Mike Saul's more recent presentation to 

the Florida House Agricultural and Natural Resource Policy Committee, EPA's proposed criteria do not reflect the true 

relationship between nutrient enrichment and the biological health of Florida's surface waters. The Secretary goes on to 

conclude that, on average, 80 percent of Florida's most pristine streams will be deemed impaired based on downstream 

protection values. He further concludes that compliance will force an investment of billions of dollars without 

environmental benefit. And if we conclude that this may be one person's flawed opinion, it should be noted that two 

previous DEP secretaries are also on record in opposition to EPA's approach. The existing State TMDL program, while 

labor intensive, is more science based, collaborative, and represents a superior approach to establishing standards. 

Good science-based standards in educating and communicating with stakeholders takes time. 

Comment ID 0661.001.003 

Author Name: Ferguson D. 

Organization: Florida Association of Counties 

I also want to make it clear that the Florida Association of Counties supports the development of science-based numeric 

nutrient criteria. We don't dispute the need for the criteria, but we are rather skeptical that they can be developed in 

such a short time frame in a scientific way and in a way that properly balances the economic impact with environmental 

protection. 

Comment ID 0661.001.005 

Author Name: Ferguson D. 

Organization: Florida Association of Counties 

It's critical that EPA gets the numbers right; otherwise, local governments are going to be wasting taxpayer dollars on 

projects that won't achieve any environmental benefit. And with counties' limited resources, we want to ensure that the 

projects they undertake achieve the most environmental benefit possible. Getting the numbers wrong can also result in 

environmental damage, which is something that no one wants. 

Comment ID 0668.001.002 

Author Name: Mann D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2058
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Utility Council of the American Water Works Association 

What has impressed me today here has been the large number of water experts that you've heard from who basically 

say that something is flawed in the science that you're using. And it's not just one person, but it's a large number of 

people who have been involved in looking at Florida's rivers and streams for a long time. 

Comment ID 0674.001.005 

Author Name: Bishop B. 

Organization: Associated Industries of Florida 

Number 3, because Florida is the leader in TMDLs, you are going to punish us for providing you the data to turn around 

and impose upon us these standards. Not only is that a disincentive to us to report any more TMDLs to you, but you're 

not going to be encouraging any other state to follow Florida's lead in what we're doing. In fact, it's to going be to a 

disincentive because Florida, in reporting our TMDLs, is giving you and the plaintiffs in this litigation the documents, the 

data that they need to make these issues. 

Comment ID 0675.001.004 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: FWEA Utilities Council, the FSAWA Utility Council, and the Florida Rural Waters Association 

Despite this process EPA's promulgated for Florida in the short time frames that you've imposed upon yourselves. 

These statistically derived criteria are contrary to the requirements of your own regulations and the advice of your own 

science advisory board. The EPA's analysis indicates that over 80 percent of Florida's biologically healthy extremes will 

not meet EPA's proposed criteria. In other words, Mother Nature cannot even meet your proposed standards. 

Comment ID 0684.001.004 

Author Name: Fraleigh J. 

Organization: 

The state has worked hard to develop scientifically defendable numeric nutrient criteria that will protect and restore 

Florida water bodies in equitable and cost-effective ways. EPA should support these efforts instead of singling out 

Florida for scientifically flawed federal standards. 

Comment ID 0703.001.004 

Author Name: Morrissey J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2059
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Pinellas County Utilities 

But this proposal suffers from great confusion and great anxiety and great scientific disagreement. I have before me a 

document that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection prepared and released on February 15th. And where 

the EPA says we've used Florida data and Florida science to develop these rules, what the State of Florida says is that 

the EPA screen criteria for protection of downstream studies are not scientifically valid. The proposed criteria are based 

on inappropriate application of the USGS SPARROW model. EPA's application of reference approach for stream 

criteria is not appropriate. EPA's nutrient criteria for springs is not adequately protected. EPA's Chlorophyll criteria for 

clear, acidic lakes is not limited to biological response. EPA's method to establish stream criteria for protection of 

downstream lakes is too simplistic. EPA's Chlorophyll criteria for South Florida canals is not appropriate. And EPA's 

estimate of economic cost is inadequate. Now, I cannot gauge the truth of those statements and I'm sure your agency 

will review those. 

Comment ID 0714.001.009 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

Number four. We want numeric nutrient criteria, but we want them based on science, based on Florida water bodies, 

Florida soils and Florida conditions, not arbitrarily set in Washington. 

Comment ID 0717.001.002 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Manatee County Natural Resources Department 

Appropriate numeric nutrient criteria are essential for the protection of designated uses for these critical water bodies 

and, as quoted in your executive summary, quote, must be based on sound scientific rationale. We feel that in some 

portions of the proposed rule, especially the development of downstream protective values, this is not the case. It is 

common knowledge in Florida that not all similar water bodies, like estuaries, lakes and streams, act the same and 

EPA's general approach in developing nutrient criteria is troublesome at best. 

Comment ID 0726.001.006 

Author Name: Price J. 

Organization: Rayonier 

The EPA has made a determination that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary to protect Florida waters. However, the 

early results show the science doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The Clean Water Act and Florida's rules provide other 

methods to address nutrient problems. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2060
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The EPA should recognize and leverage all the regulatory tools available to achieve a meaningful but workable 

regulatory process. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0730.001.002 

Author Name: Fentress P. 

Organization: Lost Lake Groves 

I would just ask you to please make sure that the process you use is science-based and peer-reviewed. I think peerreviewed is extremely important. 

Comment ID 0731.001.007 

Author Name: Hartney M. 

Organization: Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association 

We ask EPA to revisit its modeling assumptions and its economic impact statement, taking into consideration the 

constructive criticism offered here today. 

Comment ID 0732.001.014 

Author Name: Fulford C. 

Organization: Congressman Adam Putnam 

Additionally, it is worth noting that even though EPA is using slightly different methodology to determine water quality, 

they're relying on data DEP provided. EPA now seeks to impose federal regulations based on data obtained by state 

resources using methodologies which state scientists disagreed. 

Comment ID 0734.001.010 

Author Name: Young K. 

Organization: Tampa Electric Company 

In summary, EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and streams is arbitrarily set and its rapid stream 

approach does not address impairment or dose response relationships. EPA's use of the SPARROW model is 

scientifically inappropriate and watersheds with better models are available where management action plans are 

currently successful and continue to be successful. And the criteria will hamper reuse of domestic wastewater in the 

state. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2061
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0743.001.005 

Author Name: Rossman D. 

Organization: DCR Services 

We want to make sure the new regulations are based upon sound science and protect the unique, diverse and 

numerous bodies of water in Florida. The new regulations must include consideration for each body's unique 

characterization and a plan to retain or return each water body to its intended use. 

Comment ID 0746.001.007 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed 

Whether the cost to implement the standards is a thousand dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars, spending any 

amount without a proven end game is simply bad for the environment, bad for business and certainly, in its concurrent, 

state bad for the State of Florida. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0750.001.006 

Author Name: Handley J. 

Organization: 

But I believe if this rule is carried out -- we don't even know how it's going to impact us. We don't know how to plan for 

the future. I don't know how to tell ranchers and farmers what to do because we don't understand the -- we haven't been 

told what the rule really is going to be and what it means. But ultimately I think it will be counter-productive if we impose 

something and run agriculture out of this state. It will all turn into asphalt and concrete, and that is not what we want. 

I would just plead with you to let the scientists and the data and the sound data drive the train and not the lawyers and 

people that want to take this to court. Let's let science and the data that we've collected really control the agenda. 

I beg of you to come see the waterways, come see the ranch lands, come see our best management practices. And this 

goes across all ag commodities. I think it will surprise you that we have come a long ways and we are going to get 

there, but we need to do it in a sound manner that makes economic sense. 

Thank you for the opportunity. We will be submitting additional comments in writing. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0755.001.003 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2062
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Gillespie P. 

Organization: Congressman Bill Posey 

Furthermore, rather than this being a science-driven approach, it has been a time-line driven approach that lacks the 

transparency that our local governments and businesses deserve. 

Comment ID 0767.001.002 

Author Name: Hurley M. 

Organization: NAIOP Central Florida 

While we recognize the importance of ensuring that water bodies throughout the state are protected and kept free from 

pollution, we think it's equally important to ensure that the regulations reflect a truly scientific relationship between 

nutrient standards and the health of Florida surface waters. It appears that the only reason these regulations are being 

fast-tracked is to settle a lawsuit. This is an improper basis for implementing scientific rules. 

Comment ID 0769.001.002 

Author Name: Mahan R. 

Organization: Orange-Co, Inc. 

I understand based on, you know, everything that I do with our business that you have to be able to measure things. 

Numerical measurements can -- numerical objective measurements can often be the key to obtaining a successful goal. 

My concern as I've looked at the legislation and talked -- I'm a farmer. My background is food resource economics. But 

I've talked to a lot of different people, people knowledgeable, engineers and environmentalists and so forth. 

My concern is that the artificial deadlines being set by a lawsuit may cause us to sidestep some of the science. 

Comment ID 0774.001.002 

Author Name: Carter K.
 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District
 

Through all the science, we support the establishment of appropriate and scientifically established nutrient criteria as 

long as they recognize Florida's ecological diversity and enough time is allowed for sound science to be their basis. 

Because of potential ramifications of the proposed criteria on federally-mandated restoration projects further 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2063
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

necessitates that sound science rule the day. 

Comment ID 0778.001.002 

Author Name: Collins J. 

Organization: 

Sound science. People were talking about sound science. I don't believe this sound science is a settled matter. I don't 

think you can sell it to the people of Florida. You're talking about spending a billion dollars over ten years. 

Comment ID 0780.001.004 

Author Name: Fugler A. 

Organization: Florida Pest Management Association 

I would also implore you to listen to the arguments of the scientists, all of whom have more credentials than I do. I'm a 

journalist by training, so all I know how to do is collect, organize and disseminate information. The gentleman from 

ENTRIX, I believe, spoke very credibly about -- in language I don't pretend to understand at this point, about the need 

for additional measurements, additional standards to be made. I would simply implore you to work with the state 

agency, perhaps enlarge the tent, and bring these very knowledgeable scientists, all of whom have a local knowledge of 

water systems, of soil hydrology, of the local geology, into the process so we can look at a science-based applicable 

and enforceable standard for Florida water quality 

Comment ID 0786.001.003 

Author Name: Veaudry K. 

Organization: Florida Native Plant Society 

The Florida Native Plant Society supports science-based limits on nutrient pollution based on the characteristics of the 

individual body type of water. And that's an important point that we wanted to make sure that we got out there. 

Comment ID 0790.001.004 

Author Name: Hammill R. 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

So again, you know, we certainly support science, but we want to make sure the science is sustainable to our industry. 

So if we are forced out of business and not have agriculture and that good Florida orange juice, I don't think anybody in 

America will be too happy about that, so we want to make sure that whatever we come up with scientifically is validated. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2064
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2065
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0796.001.002 

Author Name: Albergo N. 

Organization: HSA Engineers and Scientists 

I recognize you have been inundated with a variety of negative comments and concerns regarding the agency's 

approach to establishing numeric nutrient criteria. 

Now, almost all of our clients understands that the agency seeks to improve water quality, protect public health, aquatic 

life and the long term recreational uses of Florida's waters. However, rules that establish standards that seek to achieve 

this goal, be it mandated by statute or not, should give due consideration to the feasibility of rule implementation, 

consider the economic impacts, and should place great weight on the specific data and site conditions. Further, the 

more balanced approach to your presentation today and your clarification of the purpose of your pictures, some dating 

back 15 years as a means of defining the challenges that Florida can face is appreciated. And as you know, the DEP, 

the water management districts and the regulated community have made enormous strides over the past decade in 

terms of water quality improvement. Florida has some of the most comprehensive and innovative water resource, 

regulatory and planning programs in the nation, and there are plenty of examples with what's right in Florida. I live in 

Tampa, for example, and we're very proud of the strides made to restore Tampa Bay. 

I am concerned that EPA has, in effect, singled Florida out as enacting standards that many highly respected engineers 

and scientists assert are technically and scientifically unsupported, arguably economically unattainable, and as you've 

heard loud and clear in Tallahassee create major hardships for virtually every sector of Florida's economy and local 

governments. 

Comment ID 0798.001.002 

Author Name: Crone R. 

Organization: Lake Worth Drainage District 

Now if we can fast forward a hundred years to the year 2010. After a hundred years with no assistance or involvement 

from the federal government to maintain storm protection and water supply to the Lake Worth Drainage District, we find 

the federal government has come to an agreement that we were not even participants in to clean the waters of the 

hundred year old canals which in the year 2010 are surrounded by residential usage. 

It is my understanding that the scientists have established numeric values that are now older than those found in many 

of the Florida natural streams and lakes. Is it wrong or bad to set numeric nutrient standards, absolutely not. Lake 

Worth Drainage District would be one of the first to start working on meeting nutrient values if they were values that 

realistically be obtained without bankrupting the residents it serves. Utilizing current South Florida water management 

techniques while removing nutrients from the waters, the Lake Worth Drainage District would use 21,000 acres of 

cleaning ponds to potentially meet the current federal numbers. That represents 15 percent of the district's total area. 

Are we asking the federal government to ignore the Clean Water Act? Absolutely not. Are we saying that Florida does 

not need nutrient criteria? Absolutely not. We are only asking the federal government to use good common sense in 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2066
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

setting the numeric values. We are also asking the federal government to work as equal partners in Florida in setting 

these values. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0802.001.001 

Author Name: Todd K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

Good afternoon. For the record my name is Ken Todd. I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of Florida. I'm 

the water resource manager for Palm Beach County, and today I'm speaking on behalf of Palm Beach County. 

Everyone is for clean water, and Palm Beach County certainly supports that goal. However, we are very concerned 

about the way EPA has gone about developing the standards to determine what water bodies need to be cleaned up. 

The standards proposed by EPA were developed so quickly and without sufficient input from state regulators and 

effective parties that one has to wonder how applicable they are to many waters within the state. It appears that the 

methodology being used is one of accepting Florida DEP impaired water body list and then using the data from water 

bodies that are not on that list to establish the nutrient criteria for all state water bodies. There appears to be no attempt 

by EPA to evaluate why a particular water body made the impaired list. Please note that not all these water bodies are 

impaired because of nutrients. In Palm Beach County there are virtually no water bodies that are not on the impaired 

list. Only using data from water bodies that are not on the impaired list skews the data by creating a biased data set, the 

end result being that the average nutrient levels will be at a much lower threshold than they would be if all the water 

bodies not impaired by nutrients were considered. In fact, in a presentation made to the Florida House Agricultural and 

Natural Resource Policy Committee earlier this month, DEP stated that over 80 percent of the state's pristine water 

bodies would be considered impaired by the proposed standards. This illustrates the need to work collaboratively to 

develop the appropriate standards. We urge EPA to work with DEP and other interested parties to develop standards 

that are scientifically based and reflective of the uses made for that water body. Part of the new criteria may need to 

include a narrative criteria for certain uses as is currently the standard. 

Comment ID 0806.001.002 

Author Name: Stopyra T. 

Organization: Packers of Indian River 

Any decision by the EPA to limit fertilizer applications or modify production practices in citrus groves must be based on 

sound science and be economically feasible. As a stake holder in this battle, I want it to be clear that these decisions 

must be based on sound science. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0810.001.004 

Author Name: Hammock A. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2067
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Not only are the criteria not science based, but the technology to monitor will be too costly, if it even exists. Where is the 

common sense? As a farmer I cannot stay in business without using common sense every day to guide me along with 

the facts and the science. I would also ask where is the science. What happened to using facts and science to drive 

water quality. 

Comment ID 0821.001.003 

Author Name: Miedema B. 

Organization: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida 

Third, we'd like the National Academy of Science to review the statistical approach behind the rule. We need an 

independent entity that understands all of the ramifications to understand what's going on. 

Comment ID 0822.001.002 

Author Name: Hutchcraft M. 

Organization: King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus 

However, having said that, like many others that you've heard from, we've got significant concerns over the proposed 

numeric nutrient standards that you're proposing. Four specific come to mind. First we're concerned with the sound 

science behind it. I'm not a scientific expert, but we have concerns when we hear FDEP say that they don't think that 

your outcomes represent a true relationship between nutrient loading and health. That gives us concern. 

Comment ID 0825.001.007 

Author Name: Wilson-Davis L. 

Organization: City of Boca Raton 

Secondly, I'd like to address the impacts of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria on the utility industry. We fully support 

the efforts and comment presented on behalf of the Florida Water Environmental Association's utility council. Numeric 

nutrient criteria must be developed in a scientifical sound manner. 

Comment ID 0839.001.005 

Author Name: Musgrove M. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation 

We believe the data gathered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the 800,000 nutrient-related data 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2068
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

points on Florida waters across the state are sufficient to establish base line and site specific nutrient standards for 

Florida's waters. The data also makes the case that it is necessary to do so now. 

Comment ID 0845.001.006 

Author Name: Lassiter K. 

Organization: Coalition of Boynton West Residential Associations 

We ask the EPA to delay limitations of these proposed limits while you make more studies to determine the best 

compromise between lower limits on nitrogen and phosphorus and cost-effective control methods. Come and look at 

the area. Look at our communities. Give us your best advice how we can reduce polluted stormwater runoff without 

increasing our water and sewage costs an estimated 400 to 600 percent. Finally, I ask water engineer if the rain that 

falls from our skies would meet the proposed limits. His reply was, sometimes not. How can the EPA seriously propose 

pollution limits that cannot be met by rainfall? We believe these proposed limits are too extreme. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak. 

Comment ID 0854.001.001 

Author Name: Larson A. 

Organization: 

I have great curiosity about you guys because I know that up in the Washington area they threw away your library a 

couple years ago, just put everything in a vault somewhere. And then when they talk about the database of water 

testing, I'm wondering where you are getting it from as far as Florida DEP. Because if you go to a site called p-e-e-r, 

peer, they threw out five years of testing. So where are you getting your numbers from? There is a whistle blower battle 

right now with this gentleman named White and five years of criteria were just gone. So what numbers are they giving 

you, Jim? I am very, very curious. I am very good -- I want to know numbers. And I am a big pain in the ass about it. I 

am a professional at it. Been doing it for years. 

Comment ID 0854.001.006 

Author Name: Larson A. 

Organization: 

When they did the peer thing, the thing that I'm telling you to go to, the site about Mr. White, those tests at that time said 

98 percent of the water bodies in Florida were impaired. So please take that into consideration. I am up here begging 

you. I'm a little off the cuff. I'm not the normal broad. I'm not going to thank you. I'm not going to say what a great day it 

is. It's just not my way 'cause I'm a very tired person. I have been doing this for six years. And I go to the South Florida 

Water Management District, I have seen the corruption. We come from a corrupt county. And corruption -- One of the 

biggest things we ever did was bribe our county commissioners who are now in federal prison. So please take that into 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2069
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

consideration. And if you're going to set me at 42, you better do it to everybody else. 

MS. KEEHNER: Excuse me, could you state your name? 

MS. LARSON: It's Alex Larson. 

Comment ID 0861.001.002 

Author Name: Rockett J. 

Organization: 

One other observation, I hear these proposed standards are based on science. I would just hope that the science used 

now in going forward is better than that used to prove global warming. My take on what has been done today is this 

agency needs to go back to the drawing board and do a better job with your analysis. Any change in nutrient standards 

must be proven as beneficial to the State of Florida and not the arbitrarily based on conjecture or extrapolation. Thank 

you. 

Comment ID 0864.001.006 

Author Name: Poulson T. 

Organization: Friends of Loxahatchee Natural Wildlife Refuge 

They say we need to validate and have more studies. We have studied this damn thing to death. We have more data, 

as I understand it, than almost any other place in the country. So let's get on with it and use what people are pushing 

more and more, which is called incremental adaptive management. We try things. If it doesn't work, they make these 

hypotheses, you do things over experiments and changes. 

Comment ID 0883.001.006 

Author Name: Lynch T. 

Organization: Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. believes that the methodology 

utilized is arbitrary and that the current proposal is not in the best interests of the citizens of the State of Florida. 

Comment ID 0887.001.003 

Author Name: Gough J. 

Organization: JR Gough Farms 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2070
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

To ensure a sustainable agriculture, decisions must be made upon quality scientific data rather than emotions . 

Unfortunately, we do not know what the data was that will be used to create unknown costs and we need time to 

scientifically review EPA's data . 

Comment ID 0888.001.002 

Author Name: McKenna M. 

Organization: McKenna Brothers 

As I walk and work the land our grandfather developed, I see firsthand the care, concern and rewards of being a 

steward of the land. I have been blessed by having the opportunity to be involved in the citrus, cattle and nursery 

industries. But what concerns us now is the possibility of having unknown costs and procedures mandated without 

knowing the basis for the decisions. For three generations our Central Florida family agricultural business has protected 

the environment to ensure the next generation has the same opportunity to enjoy and sustain a similar way of life and 

agriculture. This could all be taken away by an arbitrary decision based upon questionable data. 

Comment ID 0895.001.008 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Myth: The EPA rule will only force Florida to repair waters that need cleaning. 

Fact: Despite the absence of a direct correlation between EPA's proposed criteria and impairment thresholds, the 

proposed rule states that "EPA would expect to take appropriate action to ensure that [Florida's TMDL] list of impaired 

waters includes all waters not attaining the federal criteria."[3] Therefore, EPA's criteria will cause numerous Florida 

waters - including those showing no adverse impacts associated with nutrient pollution - to be deemed impaired, and 

regulated entities will be required to attempt to "recover" those healthy water bodies to lower nutrient levels . Thus, 

Florida will be forced to waste resources attempting to clean already clean waters . 

[3] (Proposed Rule, p. 156). 

Comment ID 0899.001.008 

Author Name: Bartz R. 

Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce 

• Disagreements with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regarding scientific data and applicability 

remain under question and doubt. Florida's bodies of water are different than areas such as the Mississippi Valley 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2071
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

where nutrient compliance could be contained. Different strategies are needed where, for example, phosphorous levels 

differ. The science needs to be evaluated by a third pany such as the National Academy of Science. 

Comment ID 0900-1.001.005 

Author Name: Milstrey G. 

Organization: Bureau of Water Assessment and Management, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

II. Peer Review of Approach(es): 

We strongly recommend that USEPA conduct a formal, high-level, rigorous scientific peer review of the derivation of 

criteria that they proposed for Florida, along with a review of all proposed approaches (throughout the country) for 

deriving nutrient criteria. The National Nutrient Strategy has proved a valuable incubator for the development of a 

number of innovative approaches for the derivation of numerical nutrient criteria, but there is real need to have the 

various approaches critically evaluated to determine whether, or not, they constitute scientifically defensible approaches 

and are consistent with the intent of the CWA. Our concern is that absent a rigorous and thorough technical review, 

state criteria and (for Florida) federal criteria are more likely to be challenged (in both the court system as well as in the 

public arena) which would further delay efforts to address this important environmental issue. While such a technical 

review would somewhat extend the regulatory time-line in the short term, in the long-run it would likely hasten the 

implementation of effective criteria. 

The November 24, 2009 US EPA Office of Water Corrective Actions Plans Transmittal in Response to EPA Needs to 

Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards,OIG Report No. 09-P-0223, appears to make the 

case for such a review. On page 3 of this memorandum, Assistant Administrator Silva states, "...EPA committed to 

providing direct assistance to those States close to adopting numeric nutrient criteria, building capacity for Statesthat 

are not as close to adopting numeric criteria, building a stronger science-based foundationfor developing new criteria in 

various waterbodies, and clearly and effectively communicatingdata and information on nutrient pollution." [emphasis 

added]. On page 4, he states, "Moreover,once EPA makes such a determination [that a state needs new or revised 

criteria to meet the requirements of the CWA], the CWA requires that EPA promptly propose federal water quality 

standards. EPA's exercise of this discretionary authority must be measured, in part because it will be important that 

EPA be ready to propose federal regulations ‘promptly' after making such a determination." [emphasis added]. 

Specifically, we ask USEPA to establish a technical advisory group(s) that would be charged with: (a) critical evaluation 

of the various approaches that have been developed during the National Nutrient Strategy process; (b) compare and 

contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches; (c) determine which of the various approaches 

appear most sound with respect to scientific validity and legal rigor, and provide recommendations as to the most valid 

approaches; and (d) define informational needs for those approaches deemed most promising - for example, would 

additional data be needed to apply a given method within another region (or Eco-region) or might the method and 

associated data have applicability across Eco-regional or state boundaries. 

In addition to the additional level of defensibility that such review would provide, it would afford states a suite of 

"sanctioned" alternative approaches to criteria derivation that have received some level of federal/scientific 

endorsement, which could be used to complement proposed approaches and/or fulfill yet unaddressed categorical 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2072
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

criteria. 

Comment ID 0903.001.001 

Author Name: Adler B. 

Organization: 

This is in regard to the Numeric nutrient criteria, which is neither technically nor scientifically supported as being applied 

in Florida. It is not reasonable to expect any state to have to treat storm water runoff--which is cause by rainfall--in the 

manner of a contaminant. It not proven that this runoff requires treatment The cost both in property which would need to 

be condemn in order to provide storage of the water and the added cost of treatment would make the use of water 

prohibitive. I am unaware of the arguments put forth by the 'special interest groups' who brought suit, but without 

technical and scientific support, nothing in the measure makes any sense. Please reconsider your proposal. 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.033 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Overall, the US EPA should abandon it present efforts to develop nutrient criteria based on "statistical approaches" and 

focus on supporting research to reliably define the adverse and beneficial impacts caused by addition of nutrients to 

waterbodies. 

Comment ID 0933.001.008 

Author Name: Collins J. 

Organization: 

9. "In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical 

reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I oftensay that when you can measure 

what you are speaking about, and express it innumbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, 

when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning 

of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." 

Lord Kelvin, 1893 

There is little or no discussion of collecting metrics to support the effectiveness of this nutrient limiting effort. EPA 

should devise an overall program that wil monitor the effectiveness of these rules. Fl will invest $1.2 Billion dollars over 

10 years to combat nutrient blooms and pollution. Metrics hsould be devised and monitored to insure that the funds are 

well spent. We need to avoid the Point of Diminishing returns where added dolllars invested yield little or no benefit. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2073
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0940-1.001.004 

Author Name: Scally C.
 

Organization: E.O. Wilson Biophilia Center
 

Monitoring should occur more than once a month and water should be found out of compliance if any of the stressors or 

response variable exceed the proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 0947.001.001 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

The EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida concerns me and other informed Floridians due 

to the following: 

(1) the Numeric Criteria appear to have been arbitrarily set without benefit of science; 

Comment ID 0949.001.003 

Author Name: Kelley H.
 

Organization: Fort Walton Beach Tea Party
 

2. There is no clear science behind the rules. 'The numeric criteria provide for Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) are 

ridiculously low and there is no scientific data to back up the extremely low MCLs for nitrates. There is also no data to 

support the idea that wastewater treatment plants are a significant source of nitrate contamination in surface water 

bodies. We believe that agricultural runoff, residential lawn fertilizers and runoff from golf courses are probably all 

contributing a higher percentage of the nitrate contamination of Florida surface waters and wastewater treatment 

facilities are way down on the list. 

Comment ID 0956.001.002 

Author Name: White C.
 

Organization: Washington County Cattlemen's Association
 

Furthermore, the criteria is technically and scientifically flawed according to numerous scientific experts in the state who 

have analyzed the data. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2074
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0958.001.003 

Author Name: Dain R. 

Organization: Golf Course Superintendents Association of America 

3. Florida is a national leader in protecting its waters from nutrient pollution. 

• The reason why 30% of the national water quality data is from Florida is because the State of Florida has been 

working hard to protect its rivers and streams, contrary to a lot of misinformation that has been presented in the media. 

Businesses and local governments have invested millions to restore impaired watersheds and protect healthy rivers and 

streams. The State has worked hard to develop scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria that will protect and 

restore Florida water bodies in equitable and cost effective ways. EPA should support these efforts instead of singling 

out Florida for scientifically flawed federal standards. 

Comment ID 0960.001.004 

Author Name: Knott A. 

Organization: 

We have already had many years of scientific data gathering and analysis in Florida and elsewhere. The proposed 

delay is just a way of killing the proposed standards. 

Comment ID 0964.001.007 

Author Name: Price J. 

Organization: Rayonier 

The EPA has made a determination that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary to protect Florida waters. However, the 

early results show the science doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The Clean Water Act and Florida's rules provide other 

methods to address nutrient problems. The EPA should recognize and leverage all the regulatory tools available to 

achieve a meaningful, but workable regulatory process. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0993.001.003 

Author Name: Rigsby J. 

Organization: Riverbend Homeowner's Association 

There is no scientific evidence to support the supposed rationale for this proposed rule. There is no evidence that 

current nutrient levels in Florida waters cause any of the conditions cited. We hope the EPA will give consideration to 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2075
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

these issues. We, as a small community simply cannot afford these proposed changes 

Comment ID 0997.001.003 

Author Name: Poulson T. 

Organization: University of Illinois 

Here are my answers to the major classes of arguments against numeric standards. 

I. WE NEED MORE STUDY TO SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATE NUMERIC STANDARDS 

A. FDEP has more data on its waters than does any other state and still writes that they need more (Ebiological / 

scientific validation1 FDEP IS SUFFERING OEPARALYSIS OF ANALYSIS1. 

B. The relative sparser data for some waters can be remedied after numeric standards are imposed. This is called 

incremental adaptive management. 

Comment ID 1009.001.015 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners 

Final General Comment: EPA's approaches, although based to a large degree on FDEP data and analyses, do not 

provide sufficient scientific validation to warrant the significant fiscal consequences to surface water discharges in 

Florida, nor do they demonstrate that Florida waters need nutrient protection to this degree. 

Comment ID 1011.001.005 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

2) The text on pages 37-38 indicates the proposed criteria will apply to all waters of the United States, which are 

defined as navigable waters. However, we understand the database that was used to develop these criteria is not 

limited to water quality samples collected from navigable waters. We believe a number of these samples were collected 

from isolated waters, which would not fall within the definition of waters of the United States. We believe it is not 

appropriate for EPA to propose a standard for a certain class of waters based on data collected from waters that fall 

outside that definition. 

Comment ID 1033.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2076
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Medintz M. 

Organization: 

I was an environmental lawyer, a young attorney in 1973, when the Clean Water Act was signed into law by Richard M. 

Nixon. It provided for numeric standards and the State of Illinois, which is historically not a paragon of good 

government, had effluent standards and had water quality standards by the end of the 1970s. 

So when I hear people in the State of Florida, mostly the pooh-bahs and lieutenants of industry -- because we don't 

have any captains here -- complain about its taking -- Well, we don't have enough time, we've got to contemplate this, 

the science isn't good, it drives me up a wall. The science has been here for decades, and the fact that they had their 

heads in the sand, and ever increasingly polluted sand, should have no bearing whatsoever on their responsibility to at 

long last do their job. 

Instead, we get what I call the hack-and-flack approach. The science isn't good, we hired somebody who will tell you 

that two plus two equals five, so we have to keep the addition tables away from the children until we resolve the conflict 

between those who say two plus two is four, and two plus two is five. So you've got the hacks inventing the science, 

and you've got the flacks publicizing it. And meanwhile, our environment is going to heck. 

Don't let that happen to you. We already heard it happen once today. It happens all the time, and the one question that I 

have that has never been answered is why can't you make as much profit building the sewage treatment plant, as you 

can building a strip mall that's going to go bankrupt in four years. Do the good work. Adopt the numeric standards, so 

that we can have transparent enforcement and transparent water. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1041.001.002 

Author Name: Urich D. 

Organization: Responsible Growth Management Coalition 

I just have to say I'm not going to presume to say what the numeric figure should be, but I think these numeric figures 

have to be. If we're going to say how hot it is outside and we don't have thermostats or thermometers telling us that, we 

don't have any way of knowing. Same thing with a car that doesn't have any working speedometer. We don't know what 

our speed limit is. So I'm not going to say what numbers you should use, but I think we should use numbers, and I think 

we should have therefore the ability to scientifically say what it is, not that it's now clear or now that it's not green. 

Comment ID 1045.001.002 

Author Name: March R. 

Organization: Come Enterprises 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2077
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Sure. I spoke at the February 18 public hearing, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide some additional comments 

today. Today I want to focus my comments on what I see as a fundamental trade-off in the proposed EPA criteria, and 

that trade-off, it seems to me, is one of the expediency to get a numeric criteria in place quickly over the level of 

certainty that we get the criteria right. And this question of how to balance what is always imperfect information with a 

desire to get a protective limit in place, is inherent in many decisions. While superficially it may seem that setting a very 

restrictive limit is the most conservative approach, unfortunately, things are seldom that simple in the real world. Wellintentioned rules which overreach can have unintended consequences and waste valuable resources. 

Comment ID 1045.001.006 

Author Name: March R. 

Organization: Come Enterprises 

The DEP has asserted that 35 percent of Florida's most pristine surface waters will fail the EPA's proposed criteria. 

Resources spent in these basins will have little, if any, environmental benefit and resources wasted even, for the best of 

intentions, are still wasted. 

Comment ID 1045.001.009 

Author Name: March R. 

Organization: Come Enterprises 

In summary, if we allow the DEP to continue to methodically develop numeric criteria, using a water-body-specific 

biological validation approach, it will take longer than it would to implement the EPA's proposed criteria. Therefore it is 

possible that some water bodies may remain impaired longer. However, we need to weigh this risk carefully against 

both potential cost and unintended consequences of a rule which sets the criteria too low. 

Comment ID 1063.001.002 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

EPA's proposed criteria are based on a scientifically sound rationale, using tens of thousands of Florida water quality 

samples. 

Comment ID 1067.001.003 

Author Name: Carter K. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2078
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

The district supports numeric nutrient criteria. We believe it is important to have clean water quality, good water quality. 

We, however, feel that any numeric nutrient criteria needs to be based on sound science. It also needs to allow 

sufficient time to build that science, in order to have the type of rules that are indeed protective of Florida's waters. 

Comment ID 1072.001.004 

Author Name: Holsinger M. 

Organization: Holsinger Horticultural Services 

To me, the big benefit of numeric nutrient criteria is now we would have something measurable. It's so important to 

have it measurable. The narrative hasn't worked, not in my estimation. So we need a -- collectively, we can develop 

these things, based on the best science, and I would say the best science because I -- it's been my experience -- we 

got the argument in the fertilizer ordinance, not enough science. We've got to wait, wait, not enough science. Well, we'll 

wait five years, then, Oh, well, we still don't have enough science. We will always not have enough science. 

I think we have to go on the best science and do the best that we can now to keep our children from inheriting and 

being responsible for spending tons of money later on to clean something once it's polluted. 

Comment ID 1077.001.002 

Author Name: Mahan R. 

Organization: OrangeCo, Inc. and C.I. Groves 

The proposed water quality standard for the state of Florida proposed by EPA are therefore significant to us. We agree 

that numeric nutrient standards provide the best measurable way to improve anything. However, we believe that the 

numeric standards the EPA has developed in a very short period of time are not particularly science based or of 

questionable science basis, that we need to look at this and analyze these standards much more closely. 

Comment ID 1083.001.003 

Author Name: Hoffman C. 

Organization: Collier County Farm Bureau 

MR. KEATING: Could you just speak a little closer to the microphone so we can hear you? 

MR. HOFFMAN: Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Protecting the water supply in Florida is going to be tough. Our water system -- our 

water supply is vast, and in order to make changes in the state, everyone must help out. It's going to -- it's going to 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2079
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

require cooperation from everyone. The best way to do this is to implement guidelines -- a set of guidelines that's based 

on sound science, that's science based and takes in consideration the complexities of different locations. 

And setting reasonable standards, allow it to be possible -- and allowing them to be possible to be achieved is important 

in these standards. From the guidelines that are set forth right now, it seems that this cannot be done. Setting 

unattainable standards, I think, is counterproductive, especially for agriculture, and I hope that you can base your 

decisions based on sound science. This is really all I have to say, and I appreciate your time. 

Comment ID 1088-1.001.007 

Author Name: Henry B. 

Organization: Broward County 

Approach to Implementation 

The EPA's development of numeric water quality criteria for south Florida canals is an important matter of great 

consequence to Broward County. The County would appreciate greater clarity by the EPA as to the intended reach of 

the rule. There are a number of south Florida lakes and canals that include control structures and are operated for the 

sake of providing water quality treatment within the system. The County requests clarification as to whether the 

proposed numeric standards are intended to be applied to such waterbodies. If so, the County would like guidance as to 

where the EPA might suggest water quality treatment is provided in advance of any discharges to ensure the standard 

can be met. If not, please clarify in the rule that waterbodies integral to permitted water quality treatment systems are 

exempt from the rule. 

Broward County appreciates the efforts of the EPA and the agency's willingness to give full consideration to the 

County's comments. We look forward to seeing a revised rule that 1) provides revised standards that are less strict 

numerically and more flexible with regards to the allowed exceedance of frequency and duration measures; 2) 

eliminates the use of Chi a as a measure of attainment; and 3) clarifies the application of the rule to waterbodies 

integral to licensed treatment systems. 

Comment ID 1103.001.006 

Author Name: Alexander J. 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

What am I asking for today? We would like you to work with us to accomplish the purposes and goals of the Clean 

Water Act of 1972. We all want clean water and we're committed to achieve this in a responsible manner. We want 

numeric nutrient criteria, but we want them based on science, based on Florida water bodies and soils and conditions, 

not arbitrarily set. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2080
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1115.001.003 

Author Name: Baldwin R. 

Organization: 

We should not allow biased, industry-funded science to determine the outcome of these rules. We must ensure that 

independent science is used and followed. 

Comment ID 1120.001.002 

Author Name: Guest D. 

Organization: 

So on the science, we think this thing can be tweaked a little bit in a number of different places, and we are going to 

submit written comments, and we hope that folks that are really experts in this can share their input and that you'll 

seriously consider it. I trust that you will. 

Comment ID 1128.001.003 

Author Name: Blancher II E.
 

Organization: Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration LLC on behalf of CF Industries
 

At the same time, I am shocked that the public -- that a public, purportedly science-based agency is using health scare 

tactics concerning its -- in its rule background and announcements for the hearing. 

E.P.A. should be held to the same professional and scientific standards as everybody else, and it should also be 

required to back unsupported claims with actual data. 

Nutrification issues are complex, especially in Florida, with its diversity of aquatic ecosystems. Understanding how 

these highly-variable ecosystems throughout the state respond to nutrients is not a simple task, as demonstrated by the 

work of F.D.E.P. in their efforts around the state. 

Comment ID 1135.001.004 

Author Name: Naja M. 

Organization: Everglades Foundation 

One cannot blame a lack of data for the absence of nutrient criteria. Years ago Florida made the investment in building 

a massive data record. We recognize that EPA devoted a considerable technical effort to the exploration of different 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2081
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

approaches for the development of numeric nutrient criteria. We thank you for that. We trust that the EPA and Florida 

are now well positioned to move forward with the criteria development. We also recognize that the development of the 

nutrient criteria is a process, and the EPA's document even though representing mixed results, due to the compilation of 

several methods, is a good foundation and a great start. 

Comment ID 1136.001.002 

Author Name: Underhill T. 

Organization: 

It's the process that primarily concerns me. And some of the key questions that I have gotten and the opportunities that 

I have serving in some of the organizations and talking with many officials, I have had a chance to speak with farmers 

and ranchers, with U.S.D.A. personnel, with regulators who work for D.E.P. and for water management districts, with 

people that work for stormwater utilities, and many different walks, and I have had -- heard many questions expressed. 

And some of -- of what comes -- comes across to me as -- as a concern is the validity of E.P.A.'s peer review process. 

Also, whether the diversity and uniqueness of Florida's ecosystems, the presence of phosphorus as you mentioned in 

the presentation, how well that has been factored into the modeling. 

Comment ID 1138.001.003 

Author Name: Waldo E. 

Organization: 

I'm not going to talk about the different scientific arguments that are there, is there sufficient data to accurately make 

this -- these criteria. And a lot of those arguments have been made. 

Comment ID 1151.001.005 

Author Name: McElwain A. 

Organization: 

Also, claims were made that the numeric nutrient standards would take 85 percent of pristine waters and make them 

impaired. In fact, the actual data is that 31 percent of Florida waters violate both D.E.P. and E.P.A. water quality 

standards, 1 percent violates D.E.P. only, and 2 percent violate E.P.A. only. 

So presumably, we were to add 2 percent that are not now covered by D.E.P. over. And for some reason, I suspect 2 

percent over our waterways coming into compliance would not be 70 billion dollars or require 20 million Elvis 

impersonators to accomplish our goal. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2082
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1155.001.002 

Author Name: Kollinger R. 

Organization: Polk County 

The current proposed standards will result in over 95 percent of the surface waters in Polk County being impaired. 

Comment ID 1155.001.007 

Author Name: Kollinger R. 

Organization: Polk County 

We have many lakes and streams throughout the county that are actively supporting recreational activities, even though 

they don't meet the proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 1163.001.005 

Author Name: Carroll R. 

Organization: Carroll Brothers Nursery 

And the same thing happened when we were fighting the fertilizer law in Pinellas County, it got ramrodded down the 

throats, they did not use sound science, they threw the university, E.P.A., and D.E.P. under the wagon, but yet today 

they like to use you all. 

I just hope you use sound science, because that's why that law is in Tallahassee, to take the law back to Tallahassee 

so that it can be used properly. And I thank you for your time today. 

Comment ID 1164-1.001.007 

Author Name: Baer W.
 

Organization: City of Altamonte Springs Public Works and Utilities
 

Eight of the City's seventeen water bodies are currently listed as impaired, including the Little Wekiva River. Preliminary 

assessment of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria suggests that nearly all of the waterbodies would be considered 

impaired under the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1166.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2083
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Christensen C. 

Organization: Estero Bay Buddies, Fort Myers Beach Yacht Club, and the Fort Myers Beach Chamber of Commerce 

Progress has been made in cleaning up our waterways. However, I feel strongly that to ensure continued progress, 

Florida needs more definitive water quality criteria such as EPA's proposed numeric standards for nutrient loading, 

provided those standards are based on sound science. 

Comment ID 1189.001.002 

Author Name: Hushon J. 

Organization: 

It's my opinion that the EPA proposed nutrient criteria for freshwater are scientifically sound and represent the best 

available estimates for standards that should be enforced. They are based on actual data from healthy Florida water 

bodies and provide practical standards for elevating the quality ever nonperforming canals, rivers, and lakes. 

Comment ID 1194.001.003 

Author Name: Spitzer K. 

Organization: Florida Stormwater Association 

We think that we need to focus on the important issues and not get lost in the inconsequential issues. We need criteria 

that will have attainable targets, where we can focus limited resources and see meaningful improvements in the health 

of our water bodies. Criteria that result in 70 to 80 percent of Florida's referenced waters being determined to be 

impaired are not -- are not focused. 

Comment ID 1194.001.005 

Author Name: Spitzer K. 

Organization: Florida Stormwater Association 

There is a high cost. It's questionable science. It -- I fear that it creates a sense of impossibility in what we can do. If -- if 

70 or 80 percent of our most pristine waters in Florida will be impaired, it -- it creates the sense of, well, what are we 

going to do? 

Comment ID 1211-1.001.005 

Author Name: Threet J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2084
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Alico, Inc. 

2) We want Numeric Nutrient Criteria, but we want them based on science - based on site-specific Florida water bodies, 

soils, and conditions, not arbitrarily settings. 

Comment ID 1223.001.002 

Author Name: Thomas J. 

Organization: 

I agree that we need to maintain our water the best way we can, but I think when we do that, we need to make sure 

what we're doing before we pull the trigger. 

It's kind of like when you go to the courthouse and start to pay property taxes. The man don't want you to write him a 

check for something close to what you owe, he wants the full amount, and he wants it to the penny. He won't accept 

anything else. Because if you give him -- give him anything else, he'll lien your property. 

And that's what we're asking -- what I'm asking for. If you're going to do it, get it right on the money before you do it. But 

I agree that we've got to have clean water to drink and this, that, and the other. 

So having said that, we know we've got to have the water, we need -- we know we need things done, but we've got to 

know what we're doing before we go to the bank with it. 

Comment ID 1229.001.002 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

Now, we are concerned that the E.P.A. has not done an adequate job of evaluating the temporal and seasonal 

distribution of the data used in derivation of the nutrient criteria. 

We have seen wide ranges of both temporal and seasonal variability in the water quality data collected on our property 

over the past decade. We are concerned that the nutrient criteria proposed for compliance purposes do not adequately 

treat that natural variation that occurs. 

It also depends a lot upon when the -- the data is taken. For example, even with data taken during the same month of 

the year, it -- it can depend, even within a month, let alone within a quarter. And so I think scrutiny needs to be given to 

the data, when it's collected, how it's actually analyzed. 

Comment ID 1235.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2085
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Hammond D. 

Organization: Entrix 

I appreciate the substantial effort invested by E.P.A., and I understand the difficulty in developing the proposed criteria. I 

believe that scientifically-defensible numeric nutrient criteria can and should be developed in Florida. 

However, after careful reviewed of the proposed rule and technical support documents, I have significant concerns 

about the methodologies used and the defensibility of the proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 1235.001.005 

Author Name: Hammond D. 

Organization: Entrix 

In my opinion, these concerns as well as others need to be addressed before scientifically-defensible numeric nutrient 

criteria could be developed for the lakes and streams in Florida. 

As it stands, the proposed rules significantly increase the number of Florida water bodies deemed impaired, forcing the 

implementation and time-consuming -- implementation of time-consuming and costly restoration measures that are not 

likely to provide an ecological benefit, taking the focus off of systems actually in need of scarce water resource 

management manpower and funding. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 1244.001.003 

Author Name: Carter K. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

The district supports numeric nutrient criteria as long as it's based on sound science, and sound science takes sufficient 

time in order to be derived for Florida's unique and incredibly diverse water resources. 

The -- the extreme complexities of developing numeric nutrient criteria have been shown by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection's Technical Advisory Committee, of which I have been a member since the beginning, the 

amount of waters that we have in this state and the -- the many different attributes that are in the environment that can 

basically influence the way nutrients are expressed in our -- our aquatic ecosystems make this a very challenging 

process. 

And so we also can see that E.P.A. has realized that a rush to judgment, sometimes you need to take a step back and 

reevaluate what we have in this rule. 

The example I would put forth to you is the SPARROW model. We appreciate that E.P.A. is reevaluating that until next 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2086
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

year. 

We also feel there is other parts to the rule that we would expressly hope that you reevaluate in a timely -- and allow 

enough time for sound science to be developed. 

Comment ID 1246.001.009 

Author Name: Adams C. 

Organization: 

Additionally, the -- the representative from the stormwater association says that 85 percent of Florida's pristine waters 

are going to be impacted as a result of these criteria. 

This is a total fabrication, complete. When we ask him, you know, where the -- they got this number, they said, "Oh, the 

D.E.P. website." Well, we went there and we look looked at it, at the website, and that number is not there. It's just 

made up, pure and simple. 

Comment ID 1255.001.006 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

Rather, the city supports standards based on defensible scientifically-based methods and the use of tools, which will 

result in standards to which compliance can be met. 

Comment ID 1260-1.001.006 

Author Name: Hurner L. 

Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual 

It is very unsettling that the proposed rule does not appear to include independent third-party review of the science on 

which these phosphorous and nitrogen criteria are set. The numbers proposed seem to be arbitrarily set and without 

scientific support. It is crucial that the ultimate numbers that are applied to waters throughout the state of Florida not 

only be scientifically based but also beneficial to the water body and attainable by the water user. 

Comment ID 1261-1.001.006 

Author Name: Dinneen J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2087
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Volusia County 

Many of the comments below consider the scientific support of the proposed NNC and highlight the demand for strong 

scientific justification in light of potentially high fiscal consequence. In general, even though EPA used many of the 

scientific methods considered by the FDEP, EPA added a number of methodologies that do not stand up to the balance 

of scientific support and fiscal consequence. 

Comment ID 1282.001.003 

Author Name: Jones H. 

Organization: Duval County Farm Bureau 

In addition, my concern, I have a little concern, and we have federal drinking water standards of 10 parts per million 

nitrogen and yet under your standards we have -- the highest amount is 1.8 parts per million. That to me is a -- is a 

concern that I would like to see addressed. 

Comment ID 1288-1.001.010 

Author Name: Barr D. 

Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District 

As part of a status network 956 waterbody sites have been sampled by the Northwest Florida Water Management 

District for FDEP since 1999 to provide water quality assessment data for 305(b) reports to EPA. The data (see 

summary in attachment C) indicates an inordinate amount of the sites sampled (289) or as much as 30% would not 

have met the water criteria EPA is proposing. However, only a few dozen of the 289 sites sampled involve water bodies 

considered truly impaired and about half of the "truly" impaired sites are those more likely related to small urbanized 

drainage channels where phosphorous rich soils are prevalent. A much closer review of the sampled sites, other 

physical and chemical data, and suitability of the nutrient data used to make a "does not meet" impairment 

determination is needed before such judgments may be made. 

Comment ID 1288-1.001.011 

Author Name: Barr D. 

Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District 

The sampling approach for making a basic determination of impairment based upon a "does not meet" a nutrient 

concentration may also be questionable or at least not well established because the basic stream flow conditions and 

the timing of the sampling are typically not accounted for by these simpler sampling techniques. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2088
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1288-1.001.013 

Author Name: Barr D. 

Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District 

Unfortunately the standards based approach as proposed also appears double edged because for some water bodies 

the concentration standards are too high. This may lead to the unintended consequence of allowing for impairment or 

excessive nutrification of the many water bodies in Northwest Florida that are currently unimpaired. 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.011 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Section 9 provides a summary of important recommendations made to EPA by an extended panel of EPA's Science 

Advisory Board (SAB) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee concerning aspects of numeric nutrient criteria 

derivation. This SAB Committee, on which NCASI was invited to participate, made a number of recommendations on 

improving the scientific process for developing numeric nutrient criteria. Several elements important to development of 

science-based criteria were recommended by the SAB Committee but were not given adequate attention by EPA in 

deriving the proposed nutrient criteria for Florida waters. The scientific underpinnings of any numeric nutrient criteria 

would be enhanced if EPA would pursue the recommendations of the SAB Committee. 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.012 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

In these comments, NCASI reports its examination of the numeric nutrient criteria proposed by EPA. The examination 

focuses, both generally and specifically, on: 

• EPA's interpretation of nutrient and other water quality data that form the scientific foundation for the proposed criteria 

(Section 2, 4, and 6), 

• statistical error analysis of the criteria; that is, are the proposed criteria reliable predictors stream condition (Section 3), 

• fertilization of forest lands and its effect on nutrient levels in nearby waters (Section 7), and 

• use of distribution percentiles as a method for determining water quality targets and criteria (Section 5). 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2089
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The material in this document is substantive in that it provides (a) a detailed technical critique of the science that forms 

that basis of EPA's derivation of nutrient criteria, and (b) suggestions for improving the performance of criteria with 

respect to their use as a management tool for waters in Florida and elsewhere. Critiques, data analysis/re-analysis, and 

suggestions concerning the criteria, inclusive of sound, science-based suggestions, on nutrient management are 

presented by subject matter category as noted in the bullet list above. 

Questions or comments regarding the content of this report should be brought to the attention of Paul Wiegand, Vice 

President Water Quality at NCASI (pwiegand@ncasi.org, telephone 919-941-6417), who will direct the interested party 

to the appropriate NCASI staff member involved in preparation of the material. NCASI staff directly involved in comment 

preparation included: 

John Beebe, Sr. Research Scientist 

Dr. George Ice, Principal Scientist 

Dr. Douglas McLaughlin, Principal Research Scientist 

Dr. Erik Schilling, Sr. Research Scientist 

Paul Wiegand, Vice President Water Quality 

Comment ID 1298-1.001.007 

Author Name: Gastesi R. 

Organization: Board of County Commissioners, County of Monroe 

Monroe County remains committed to supporting EPA's efforts to develop numeric nutrient criteria for the State of 

Florida, but the criteria must be achievable, based on sound science, and must consider the impacts to local 

governments in tenns of actually being able to effectuate meaningful benefits. We believe the County is "ahead of the 

curve" and has already placed tremendous effort into substantiating and meeting very stringent water quality criteria. 

We would ask that you build upon that science and those efforts as you move forward. We remain committed to working 

with you and your staff as this process moves forward. For any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call 

myself or Kevin Wilson (305- 453-8797) for any further questions you might have. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.002 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

This letter, supported by detailed technical reports, will demonstrate that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA 

or the "Agency") proposed criteria are not scientifically defensible and thus are arbitrary and capricious [1]. The final 

regulations must correct the identified scientific deficiencies. 

[1] See Appendix E for legal basis of this conclusion. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2090
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.018 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

EPA's Statistical Approach 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that EPA establish standards that accurately reflect the latest scientific 

knowledge. 

"Section 304 (a) Criteria development and publication 

(1) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, 

shall develop and publish, within one year after October 18, 1972 (and from time to time thereafter revise) criteria for 

water quality accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge 

(A) on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare including, but not limited to, plankton, fish, 

shellfish, wildlife, plant life, shorelines, beaches, esthetics, and recreation which may be expected from the presence of 

pollutants in any body of water, including ground water; 

(B) on the concentration and dispersal of pollutants, or their byproducts, through biological, physical, and chemical 

processes; and 

(C) on the effects of pollutants on biological community diversity, productivity, and stability, including information on the 

factors affecting rates of eutrophication and rates of organic and inorganic sedimentation for varying types of receiving 

waters." 

The Agency is also bound by its own regulations that address the need for water quality criteria to be based on sound 

science. 40 CFR 131, Subpart B clearly states; 

“... (a) Inclusion of pollutants: (1) States must adopt those water quality criteria that protect the designated use. Such 

criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the 

designated use. For waters with multiple use designations, the criteria shall support the most sensitive use.” 

Finally, the Agency has developed and published well defined guidelines, "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National 

Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses", USEPA 1985 ("Guidelines"), for 

developing water quality criteria and has followed these guidelines since publication. There are several key 

requirements establishedby these Guidelines that the Agency did not follow during development of the proposed 

numeric nutrient criteria. . 

"...Criteria should attempt to provide a reasonable and adequate amount of protection with only a small possibility of 

considerable overprotection or underprotection. It is not enough that the criterion is the best estimate given the available 

data. Criteria should be derived only if adequate appropriate data are available to provide reasonable confidence that it 

is a good estimate", page 5 of the Guidelines. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2091
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

"...These National Guidelines should be modified whenever sound scientific evidence indicates that a National Criterion 

produced using these Guidelines would probably be substantially overprotective or underprotective of the aquatic 

organisms and their uses on a national basis", page 18 of the Guidelines. 

"...On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field information, determine if the criterion is consistent with 

sound scientific evidence. If it is not, another criterion, either higher or lower, should be derived using appropriate 

modifications of these Guidelines", Page 57 of the Guidelines. 

The Agency did not follow its own regulation and guidance in proposing numeric nutrient criteria that lack a defensible 

level of certainty, will not protect designated uses, do not balance the need to not be overprotective or underprotective, 

and will result in the classification of State waters as impaired due to natural occurring conditions. The Agency is 

required by 40 C.F.R. 131.11(a) to propose criteria that can be shown to address these concerns. 

1. Inappropriate Levels of Uncertainty 

The EPA has not demonstrated that the criteria set forth in the proposed regulation are any more protective of 

designated uses than arbitrarily selected numbers would be. In short, EPA's numeric criteria do not relate with any 

acceptable degree of confidence to the probability of impairment. EPA guidance, as well as common sense and a 

reasonable approach to the scientific method, requires appropriate management of uncertainty in the development of 

water quality standards. In the proposed standards, EPA has not sufficiently characterized important aspects of 

uncertainty in the development of its proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

As shown in NCASI’s analysis of EPA’s proposed criteria for flowing waters, actual rates of error (i.e., in predicting 

designated use impairment or non-impairment based on whether the proposed numeric standard is violated) are 

alarmingly high. In some cases, the degree of uncertainty was similar to the uncertainty that would result if variables 

were randomly selected. In other words, the application of the numeric nutrient criteria proposed by EPA was no better 

than a coin toss in predicting impairment in a flowing lake or stream. (NCASI at Section 3.0) Most importantly, EPA 

appears to have ignored its own systematic planning process2 in the development of the proposed criteria. Under 

EPA’s accepted approach, uncertainties and the potential for decision errors must be evaluated where possible, and 

efforts must be made to minimize decision errors and achieve widely acceptable levels of uncertainty. EPA must 

estimate and address uncertainties quantitatively when it selects and applies a method for setting a standard, and this 

process is no less applicable to numeric nutrient criteria development. At a minimum, if the Agency were to establish a 

defensible set of numeric criteria, FPPAEA is certain the EPA must begin with such a process. EPA has seriously erred 

in setting its standard at a value that appears random, rather than establishing criteria that would yield a prediction of 

impairment with an acceptable degree of confidence. 

The systematic approach that the Agency should have and could have used in the characterization of its proposed 

standards is illustrated by NCASI. They present an analysis that leads to the conclusion that "several key 

determinations that support the proposed criteria appear to be arbitrary, and their basis is not transparent." (NCASI at 

Section 3.0) The technical findings by NCASI strongly indicate that the standards that EPA has developed and 

proposed cannot demonstrate, with any realistic degree of certainty, protection of designated uses. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2092
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.039 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

As discussed earlier in these comments, FDEP has offered comments on the selection of TN and TP as well. The 

Agency should not develop, implement, or require the State of Florida to develop or implement, water quality standards 

based on inappropriate parameters, i.e. TN and TP. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.061 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

Conclusion 

Based on the entirety of these comments and the referenced reports, the record demonstrates that the proposed 

standards are not based upon a valid scientific approach and thus, based on the legal opinion attached, is considered 

arbitrary and capricious. 

Comment ID 1335.001.003 

Author Name: Littlejohn C. 

Organization: Florida Land Council 

Right now, Florida's business community is employing scientists to study the data and methodology behind the 

standards that you have set for our state, and we're discovering that the science, the methodology, and the datasets 

itself are flawed. I would like for your agency to take a special look at the work of three different bodies of scientists and 

experts who have been looking into this issue since last summer. 

Comment ID 1335.001.011 

Author Name: Littlejohn C. 

Organization: Florida Land Council 

Florida has spent over 20 million trying to gather data, set benchmarks and find answers. But like everyone today, we 

all want instant answers, and DEP was forced to utilize a crude statistical averaging methodology that does not take 

into account the unique characteristics of our many thousands of rivers, streams, canals and lakes. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2093
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1339.001.003 

Author Name: Speed Sr. D. 

Organization: Douglas Speed & Associates 

The point being that we have seen today a lot of statistical information. There has been no science presented by 

anyone here today, none.It's just -- and, Jim, all your information, your 100,000 samples, that's not science, that's 

statistics. And we've got the science to do this. Let's just simply use it. 

Comment ID 1347.001.004 

Author Name: McAuley R. 

Organization: Alabama Pulp & Paper Council 

First, the proposal is not sound technically. Details of technical shortcomings are given in submittals by NCASI, FWQC, 

AF&PA, and FPPAEA. The unsoundness of the science behind the proposed standards is reason enough for EPA to 

withdraw the proposal and to reconsider its approach to the regulation of nutrients in Florida waters. It should do so. 

Comment ID 1349-1.001.002 

Author Name: VanDe Hei D. 

Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 

1. EPA must ensure the use of sound science as the foundation for its decisions. This includes applying the correct data 

and tools to assure the best scientific analysis for the task at hand. AMWA fully supports EPA's goal to develop and 

apply the best available science for addressing environmental problems (www.epa.gov/history/org/origins/goals.htm) to 

support its mission to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment. Therefore, EPA must assure the 

proper application of the scientific tools and methodologies used to develop the nutrient criteria. AMWA also urges EPA 

to use the best available water-body specific data, where available. The comments and concerns that AMWA has 

reviewed from the state Department of Environment (DEP), water districts and university researchers note that the body 

of scientific literature specific to Florida's waters is substantial and has not been fully considered in EPA's proposal. 

Comment ID 1349-1.001.003 

Author Name: VanDe Hei D. 

Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 

2. EPA must work closely with primacy agencies to help determine the proper use of the available data and analytical 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2094
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

tools to develop nutrient criteria. Given the breadth of work that has been done to develop nutrient criteria at the state 

level, AMWA encourages EPA to work closely with the state primacy agency to ensure that any analysis or draft criteria 

previously developed by the state is interpreted and employed correctly in EPA's methodology. Based on comments 

posted on Florida DEP's website, AMWA is concerned that EPA's analysis oversimplifies the complex work performed 

by Florida DEP over the last several years. 

Comment ID 1349-1.001.004 

Author Name: VanDe Hei D. 

Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 

Given the increasingly complex interactions between the various environmental laws and regulations governing the 

nation's watersheds and water supplies, EPA must ensure that the scientific data and analysis that underlies its 

regulatory decisions are sufficiently robust. Without a sound scientific foundation, the subsequent structure built upon it 

cannot stand. 

Comment ID 1350-1.001.008 

Author Name: Schwartz J. 

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association 

VI. Recommendations 

EPA's SAB has advised EPA that "[n]umeric nutrient criteria developed and implemented without consideration of 

system specific conditions (e.g., from a classification based on site types) can lead to management actions that may 

have negative social and economic and unintended environmental consequences without additional environmental 

protection." Draft SAB 2010, at 37. 

To prevent these unintended consequences, EPA must adhere to the following principles when developing numeric 

nutrient criteria in Florida or elsewhere. 

• Any federal criteria must meet the requirements of EPA's water quality standards regulations. This means the criteria 

must be set at a level that is necessary to protect designated uses (40 C.F.R. 131.2), must be based on a "sound 

scientific rationale," (40 C.F.R. 131.11(a)), and must be developed using "scientifically defensible methods" (40 C.F.R. 

131.11(b)). To meet these requirements: 

o Criteria must be based on a biologically relevant impairment threshold. 

o Criteria must be based on a documented cause-and-effect relationship between the nutrient being controlled and the 

biological response that affects the designated use. 

o Criteria must not result in the control of nutrients below natural background levels. 

o Criteria cannot be based on novel uses of inappropriate models. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2095
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

• Criteria should apply only if the specific nutrient is affecting plant growth. 

• EPA must recognize that federal criteria will be directly incorporated into permits and therefore EPA's cost estimate 

must fully account for the costs of implementing its proposed standards, to dischargers, to agriculture, to city storm 

sewer systems, and to the State as a whole. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.036 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

CONCLUSIONS 

In general, EPA should demonstrate that the implementation of these proposed criteria will result in protection of 

designated uses and provide assurances that unnecessary burdens will not be imposed on water resource 

management agencies based on potential biases in the estimates. 

Comment ID 1354-1.001.003 

Author Name: Tompkins H. 

Organization: St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners 

The proposed criteria will deem many Florida waters impaired, including those showing no adverse impacts associated 

with nutrient pollution, requiring stakeholders to identify and fund projects to achieve lower nutrient levels in healthy 

waterbodies. It is estimated that 35% of Florida's most pristine surface waters will fail the proposed in-stream criteria. 

Currently, 17 waterbodies in St. Johns County are included on the verified impaired list for dissolved oxygen but the 

depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations have not been linked to a causative pollutant. In six of the waterbodies, 

anthropogenic land uses make up less than 10% of the watershed area. 

Comment ID 1355-1.001.005 

Author Name: Barker V. 

Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 

Data Sources & Analysis: EPA used data from FDEP's STORET database. Data in STORET is not classified by 

purpose. For example, it is common to test stormwater flows entering and leaving a treatment facility and enter both into 

STORET. Many of these water quality samples specifically target large storm events and thus under-represent base 

flow and conditions during smaller, more frequent events. Therefore, indiscriminate use of STORET data will yield 

biased numeric criteria for streams, lakes, and canals. In addition, EPA appears to have discarded data from potential 

reference sites based on Coliform bacteria, mercury, and/or low dissolved oxygen whether the variations related high 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2096
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

nutrient values or not. This unnecessarily discarded many sites which would have given EPA a larger data set. 

EPA should conduct a test application of their proposed criteria and compare it to FDEP's verification of impaired and 

unimpaired waters. Ifa high percentage of waters found by FDEP to be unimpaired test as impaired under proposed 

criteria, then conditions for such disagreement should be researched before further action. In addition, comparison of 

waters known to be impaired with the criteria would indicate whether or not the criteria are under or over protective and 

the scale of the gap between the criteria and field measurements would indicate the extent of under or over 

protectiveness. 

The EPA rule should address sampling methods, timing, minimum sample size, location, event type, flow variabilty, etc. 

Without balanced and consistent data collection, use of geometric means will not accurately describe water quality 

conditions. Sampling and numeric criteria should capture color/characteristics at time of sampling and be used to 

account for the fact that some streams and lakes change from one EPA classification to another seasonally or during 

longer natural oscillations such as el nino/la nina events. In addition, the time scale used for springs should reflect that 

travel time from pollutant sources can be much longer for springs than for other water bodies. 

Comment ID 1355-1.001.008 

Author Name: Barker V. 

Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 

Monitoring: If normal or occasional testing reveals that a waterbody exceeds or is near a threshold, then additional 

monitoring could be required to increase the accuracy of impairment assessment. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.005 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

B. EPA's Proposed Criteria Do Not Comply With Federal Water Quality Standards Regulations. 

Once EPA makes its determination under section 303(c)(4)(B) and embarks on a rulemaking to promulgate water 

quality standards in a state, EPA is subject to the requirements of section 303(c) of the CWA and its implementing 

regulations at 40 C.F.R. part 131. Specifically, state water quality criteria must be "necessary to protect the [designated] 

uses." 40 C.F.R. 131.2. Criteria also must be based on "sound scientific rationale." 40 C.F.R. 131.11(a). Numeric 

criteria should be based on EPA's section 304(a) guidance, section 304(a) guidance modified to reflect site-specific 

conditions, or "other scientifically defensible methods." 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b). In addition, narrative criteria may be 

established where numeric criteria cannot be established, or to supplement numeric criteria. Id. 

1. EPA's proposed criteria fail to meet the requirement of scientific defensibility. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2097
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The technical flaws in EPA's proposal are too significant to comply with EPA water quality standards regulations. By 

failing to establish impairment thresholds, EPA's proposed criteria cannot be shown to be "necessary to protect 

[designated] uses," as required by 40 C.F.R. 131.2. By failing to demonstrate cause-and-effect, by regulating 

unimpaired waters, and by classifying natural conditions as impaired, these criteria are not based on "sound scientific 

rationale," as required by 40 C.F.R. 131.11(a). As a result, EPA's proposed criteria are not scientifically defensible, as 

required by 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b). 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.009 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

3. EPA failed to follow its own Peer Review Guidance. 

Some of the flaws in EPA's proposed criteria may be attributable to the Agency's use of novel methods of criteria 

derivation that have not gone through peer review. EPA's use of the Vollenweider model to develop those values for 

lakes is a novel use of this model. EPA's own Peer Review Manual states that a scientific or technical work product that 

"establishes a significant precedent, model, or methodology" should be peer reviewed. Downstream protection values 

are scientific and technical work products that establish a significant precedent. Moreover, "an application of an existing, 

adequately peer reviewed methodology or model to a situation that departs significantly from the situation it was 

originally designed to address is a candidate for peer review." The use of the Vollenweider model to establish 

downstream protective values is a significant departure from the situation it was originally designed to address. The 

Vollenweider model was developed to analyze deep lakes with long retention periods. It is not applicable to shallow 

Florida lakes. Thus, both the concept of downstream protection values and the use of this model to derive those values 

require peer review. EPA, Peer Review Handbook 3rd Edition (EPA/100/B-06/0020), at 29-32. The failure to follow its 

own peer review guidance renders EPA's proposed criteria based on downstream protection values arbitrary and 

capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.056 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

Third, EPA must not control of nutrients below natural background levels. 

Fourth, EPA must not base its criteria on inappropriate models. 

Fifth, criteria should apply only if the specific nutrient is affecting plant growth. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.041 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2098
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

7. Conduct case studies on selected Florida waterways to test the validity of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.050 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

16. The statistical methods used in the rule development should be reviewed by NAS. 

Comment ID 1371-1.001.004 

Author Name: Porta T. 

Organization: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators 

Nutrients Are Not "Threshold" Pollutants 

The usual construct of the water quality standard or criteria representing the threshold below which the beneficial use of 

the water is protected and above which the use is jeopardized does not necessarily hold when applied to nutrients. 

Because nutrients are natural and essential components of a healthy ecosystem, they cannot be treated like toxic 

pollutants that have clear and consistent thresholds over a broad range of aquatic systems and conditions. Broad 

application of a single number is especially troubling given the various purposes for which, in practice, the water quality 

standard is used. The numerical standard is the target for water quality based effluent limits in NPDES permits 

(protecting against degrading the use), the target for calculating TMDLs (restoring the use), as well as assessment 

measures (whether the use is supported). All of these applications rely on confidence in the numeric criteria being an 

accurate threshold for adverse effects. 

Comment ID 1371-1.001.007 

Author Name: Porta T. 

Organization: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators 

Consideration of Implementation Impacts 

In the case of numerical water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus, it is difficult to separate the issue of what 

the standards should be from the impact of implementing them. It must be acknowledged that establishing water quality 

standards only guarantees nutrient reductions from point sources, which in many watersheds may be a relatively small 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2099
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

portion of the nutrient inputs. If phosphorus and nitrogen levels in waterbodies were maintained at the very low levels of 

the proposed Florida standards, there is no doubt that impairments due to nutrients could be ruled out. But are such low 

levels actually necessary to maintain healthy biological communities, pleasing aesthetics and high quality drinking 

water? In Florida and other states, many of the most pristine, least impacted, healthy waters in the state have higher 

concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen than the level of the standards. It seems a waste of resources to require 

limit of technology controls on wastewater treatment plants to achieve very low nutrient levels that may not be 

necessary to maintain healthy streams, rivers, lakes or estuaries. Such expenditures seem especially wasteful if there is 

no ability to guarantee reductions of non-point nutrient sources that are often larger contributors of nutrients to waters. 

Comment ID 1372-1.001.013 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) 

V. DATA SUPPORTING THE NUTRIENT RULE VIOLATES DATA QUALITY ACT AND EPA GUIDELINES 

The Data Quality Act (DQA), which was enacted in December 2000 and took effect October 2002, amended the Paper 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. Under the DQA, a federal agency like the EPA, must ensure that the 

information it disseminates meets certain quality standards. For example, the data must be accurate, reliable and 

unbiased and sound statistical research methods must be used to generate original and supporting data and develop 

analytical results. 67 F.R. at 8459-60. Additionally, EPA's own guidelines state that the disseminated information must 

be presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner and as a matter of substance, must be accurate 

and reliable ... Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information 

Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

According to the EPA, its guidelines apply when it initiates a distribution of information to support or formulate a 

regulation, guidance, or other agency decision or position. Id. U.S. Sugar believes that the DQA and EPA's guidelines 

would be applicable to the dissemination of data in support of the Nutrient Rule. To that end, the EPA should also 

consider this submission a Complaint and Request for Correction of Information regarding data relied upon by the EPA 

for the Nutrient Rule. 

U.S. Sugar believes that there are various and significant errors with the data presented by the EPA for the Nutrient 

Rule. As discussed in this comment letter as well as those of the EPD and the other interested parties, this Nutrient 

Rule ignores readily available data, improperly relies on DEP's impaired water bodies lists, fails to properly consider sub 

eco-regions for south Florida, improperly applies the reference site approach to canals, and ignores its own guidance 

documentation on numeric nutrient criteria. Until these issues are addressed, U.S. Sugar believes relying on this data 

set to justify the rule is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. Such an approach to developing a numeric 

nutrient rule would not withstand an administrative challenge. 

Comment ID 1414-1.001.011 

Author Name: Poltak R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2100
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 

8) Approaches to nutrient criteria derivation should be peer reviewed 

EPA should conduct a formal, high-level, rigorous scientific peer review of the derivation of criteria that they have 

proposed for Florida, along with a review of all proposed approaches (across the country) being used for deriving 

nutrient criteria. There is a need to have the approaches critically evaluated to determine if they are scientifically 

defensible and are consistent with the intent of the Clean Water Act. Without a rigorous and thorough technical review, 

criteria are more likely to be challenged, which would further delay efforts to address this important environmental issue. 

While this process would extend the timeline for establishing criteria, in the long run it would facilitate implementation of 

effective criteria. 

Comment ID 1443-1.001.005 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

Lastly, we would like to briefly comment on a few specific issues with the proposed Florida nutrient standards. 

- EPA has not adequately explained several significant assumptions used in the proposed water quality standards. 

Without a sound scientifically-defensible basis, water quality criteria should not be adopted into State water quality 

standards or their water programs. 

Comment ID 1443-1.001.006 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

- EPA assumed use attainment status for waters it did not properly evaluate and then preceded to establish criteria 

based on those assumptions upon which no scientific basis was used to make the determination. 

Comment ID 1462-1.001.007 

Author Name: Helfrich C. 

Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria must be developed in a scientifically sound manner. 

Comment ID 1464-1.001.007 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2101
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Ettinger A. 

Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. 

III. The Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters Should be Adopted with 

Corrections 

A. General Comments 

The proposed criteria numbers are supported by a sound scientific rationale. Further, the method for choosing the 

criteria is in accord with prior EPA methods for setting criteria and the criteria that have been chosen are also supported 

in many cases by independent collaborating evidence. 

Comment ID 1464-1.001.042 

Author Name: Ettinger A. 

Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. 

In short, to protect the nation's waters from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, EPA must do the best it can to make 

reasonable estimates based on available data and may not design criteria to attain a result that is economically 

palatable. Timing and implementation of the criteria can involve policy choices, but those are to be made after 

protective criteria are developed. 

Comment ID 1471.001.003 

Author Name: Authors Multiple 

Organization: Mass Comment Campaign Sponsoring Organization Unknown 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.002 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

In these comments, we wish to make three points: First, EPA's proposed criteria are not set at levels to protect 

designated uses and are not based on sound science. Therefore, EPA cannot demonstrate that its proposed criteria are 

necessary to improve water quality or meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2102
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.014 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

C. EPA's Proposed Criteria Do Not Comply With Federal Water Quality Standards Regulations. 

Once EPA makes its determination under section 303(c)(4)(B) and embarks on a rulemaking to promulgate water 

quality standards in a state, EPA is subject to the requirements of section 303(c) of the CWA and its implementing 

regulations at 40 C.F.R. part 131. Specifically, state water quality criteria must be "necessary to protect the [designated] 

uses." 40 C.F.R. 131.2. Criteria also must be based on "sound scientific rationale." 40 C.F.R. 131.11(a). Numeric 

criteria should be based on EPA's section 304(a) guidance, section 304(a) guidance modified to reflect site-specific 

conditions, or "other scientifically defensible methods." 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b). In addition, narrative criteria may be 

established where numeric criteria can not, or to supplement numeric criteria. Id. 

1. EPA's proposed criteria fail to meet the requirement of scientific defensibility. 

The technical flaws in EPA's proposal are too significant to comply with EPA water quality standards regulations. By 

failing to establish impairment thresholds, EPA's proposed criteria cannot be shown to be "necessary to protect 

[designated] uses," as required by 40 C.F.R. 131.2. By failing to demonstrate cause-and-effect, by regulating 

unimpaired waters, and by classifying natural conditions as impaired, these criteria are not based on "sound scientific 

rationale," as required by 40 C.F.R. 131.11(a). As a result, EPA's proposed criteria are not scientifically defensible, as 

required by 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b). 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.027 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

B. EPA's Proposed Criteria Do Not Comply With Federal Water Quality Standards Regulations. 

Once EPA makes its determination under section 303(c)(4)(B) and embarks on a rulemaking to promulgate water 

quality standards in a state, EPA is subject to the requirements of section 303(c) of the CWA and its implementing 

regulations at 40 C.F.R. part 131. Specifically, state water quality criteria must be "necessary to protect the [designated] 

uses." 40 C.F.R. 131.2. 

Criteria also must be based on "sound scientific rationale." 40 C.F.R. 131.11(a). Numeric criteria should be based on 

EPA's section 304(a) guidance, section 304(a) guidance modified to reflect site-specific conditions, or "other 

scientifically defensible methods." 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b). In addition, narrative criteria may be established where numeric 

criteria can not, or to supplement numeric criteria. Id. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2103
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

1. EPA's proposed criteria fail to meet the requirement of scientific defensibility. 

The technical flaws in EPA's proposal discussed above are too significant to comply with EPA water quality standards 

regulations. By failing to establish impairment thresholds, EPA's proposed criteria cannot be shown to be "necessary to 

protect [designated] uses," as required by 40 C.F.R. 131.2. By failing to demonstrate cause-and-effect, by regulating 

unimpaired waters, and by classifying natural conditions as impaired, these criteria are not based on "sound scientific 

rationale," as required by 40 C.F.R. 131.11(a). As a result, EPA's proposed criteria are not scientifically defensible, as 

required by 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b). 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.039 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Whichever choice EPA makes, TFI urges EPA to ensure that its nutrient criteria are scientifically defensible and set at a 

level necessary to protect designated uses. Specifically, TFI urges EPA to adhere to the following principles when 

developing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida or elsewhere: 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.010 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District 

It appears that EPA excluded total nitrogen and total phosphorus data from their analysis if water quality samples were 

derived from an impaired water body. Unfortunately, Florida's water bodies may appear impaired (e.g., have low 

dissolved oxygen concentrations) even if those water bodies have not been harmed by anthropogenic influences (e.g., 

low dissolved oxygen concentrations may be a natural consequence of relatively high levels of groundwater inputs as 

well as significant contributions from wetlands). Therefore, the LRD believes EPA should have only excluded from 

analysis those nitrogen and phosphorus samples derived from water bodies impaired due to elevated nutrient 

concentrations. Thus, EPA should re-evaluate their statistical analyses using all available nutrient data except those 

samples derived from water bodies truly impaired by nutrients. 

Comment ID 1476-1.001.002 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

This extensive experience has shaped the District's firm position that while numeric nutrient criteria are important for 

protecting Florida's water resources, successful numeric nutrient criteria must be developed through a science-based 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2104
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

process. Further, any criteria must address Florida's remarkable ecological diversity in order to achieve appropriate and 

protective water quality standards. 

With this in mind, the District offers the following technical comments along with ready access to the expertise of our 

scientists and staff plus several decades of South Florida water quality data. We believe that shared resources, sound 

science and reasonable timeframes can be used to formulate a Final Rule that is technically defensible and achieves 

our mutual goal of protecting and improving the water quality of Florida's rivers, lakes and streams. 

Comment ID 1476-1.001.003 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Comments Overview 

The District respectfully recommends reconstruction of the proposed rule to achieve a scientifically defensible Final 

Rule that provides the right level of protection for the diverse water bodies of Florida. 

Comment ID 1476-1.001.008 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Statistics: Many statistical assumptions are not tested or shown in the proposed rule. The District respectfully asks that 

EPA provide data demonstrating how statistical assumptions were tested. 

Comment ID 1476-1.001.009 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

The District further recommends that EPA engage in a thorough and transparent peer review process, utilizing the 

expertise of the EPA's own Scientific Advisory Board, the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Councilor 

other nationally recognized scientific panels to determine the validity of the technical and scientific underpinnings of the 

proposed criteria. Statewide numeric nutrient criteria that are not scientifically valid have the real potential to disrupt 

Everglades restoration progress, including the 50:50 cost-share relationship established in the Water Resources 

Development Act of 2000 with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the implementation of the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan. Additionally, basin management plans, now under way to improve Florida's water bodies, 

may be delayed, and South Florida's recent successes in wastewater reuse to protect freshwater resources may be 

unintentionally hindered if nutrient criteria are poorly matched to the water bodies they were designed to protect. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2105
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1476-2.001.009 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

IV. South Florida Water Management District Response to USEPA Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria: Comments on 

Statistical Methods and Assumptions 

A. Statistical Flaws in the Derivation Process: Global Issues 

Universally, USEPA has not documented that their data assumptions are validated or satisfied based on the distribution 

of the data. Use of transformations, parametric tests and other more complex statistical measures need direct evidence 

of meeting all assumptions. For example, USEPA never appears to test for the log-normality of the water quality data; 

this untested assumption is important in setting criteria. 

The calculation of percentiles as presented by USEPA from means and standard deviations of log-transformed data 

distributions is unnecessary and potentially incorrect. If USEPA elects to use percentiles of the data approach to criteria 

setting, then they should derive percentiles from the available data directly, without log-transforming. Using data from 

different regions for TP, TN and Chla can bias the results and render them inappropriate for application across the 

region, as proposed by USEPA. 

Comment ID 1476-2.001.011 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

For the linear regression analyses used by USEPA, the assumptions of log-normality and constant variance of residuals 

could lead to large discrepancies. Measurement error associated with using average values has not been unaccounted 

for. Beyond these global concerns, the following text focuses on specific statistical concerns within the lakes and South 

Florida canals section of the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 1476-2.001.018 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

E. Additional Peer Review and Comment 

EPA's own Scientific Advisory Board ("SAB") found substantial shortcomings in the technical guidance documents 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2106
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

published by EPA in order to assist states in developing their own numeric standards, yet EPA did not return to the SAB 

for a peer review of the scientific methodologies and approaches underlying the current proposed rule. In fact, no 

review of the methodology and approaches utilized to develop the canal criteria was ever undertaken or included in the 

proposed rule. The District strongly recommends that EPA delay promulgating criteria, particularly for streams and 

canals in the state, until such time as a more thorough peer review is undertaken by the SAB, National Academy of 

Sciences, or other nationally recognized scientific panel to determine the validity of the technical and scientific 

underpinnings of the proposed criteria. 

Although EPA requested that stakeholders comment on the alternatives considered as part of the rulemaking process, it 

failed to include adequate methodological explanations or explanations of scientific assumptions underlying these 

alternatives, instead addressing the alternatives in "general terms." See Amer. Med. Ass'n. v. U.S., 887 F.2d 760 (7th 

Cir. 1989) (holding that notice was inadequate when an issue was only addressed in general terms in the initial 

proposal). The District was therefore unable to thoroughly address the validity of the science and methodologies 

supporting the considered alternatives. The District has also had no opportunity to address any alternatives proposed 

by other commenting stakeholders. The District respectfully requests that should the EPA change its approach and 

methodology to adopt a different rule than that proposed based on either those alternatives considered in the proposed 

rule or any alternative proposed by a commenting stakeholder, it republish the proposed rule to allow additional time for 

review and comment on the newly adopted alternatives. A substantially changed final rule based on alternatives utilizing 

different methodologies and scientific assumptions that currently lack an adequate explanation of scientific assumptions 

and methodologies would not qualify as a logical outgrowth of the rulemaking process and EPA should not promulgate 

a final rule based on these alternatives until a new round of comments was held so that stakeholders would be provided 

"their first occasion to offer new and different criticisms that the agency might find convincing," regarding the newly 

adopted alternatives. See Assoc. of Battery Recyclers Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 208 F.3d 1047 at 1059 (C.A.D.C. 2000). 

Comment ID 1476-2.001.076 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

I. Potential Additional Research Pathways 

Additional research for streams (and canals) might include two basic types; (1) studies of natural systems and (2) 

controlled experimental designs that include bioassay and mesocosm studies. Empirical studies of natural systems 

include assessments of water quality and biological communities at reference sites compared to sites with similar 

physiographic characteristics and high nutrient concentrations. 

Hydrology and water quality are more variable in streams than lakes and wetlands, making it more difficult to define 

relationships between nutrients and biology in the natural environment. Controlled testing will likely be required. Such 

studies would identify the "potential" for streams to exhibit nutrient related problems, and identify those factors (geology, 

habitat, land use) that define the degree of impact in specific streams or watersheds. The types of research conducted 

on phosphorus limitations for the Everglades over the last two decades can provide a template for such research in 

streams. It will be important to define the expectation for such research: it will take several years of targeted research of 

both types to establish numeric criteria for streams. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2107
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.022 

Author Name: Rudd F. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

We would also note that EPA's recommendations for Florida seem to ignore the recommendations and guidance 

provided by its own science advisory committee in several instances. For example, 

- EPA's Science Advisory Board recently reviewed the Agency's proposed methods for nutrient criteria derivation and 

informed EPA that the methods were seriously flawed and not scientifically defensible. (See attached Key SAB Findings 

on Nutrient Criteria Development). This proposal broadly ignores the SAB recommendations on how to develop 

scientifically defensible standards that will properly regulate nutrients only when and where they cause unacceptable 

impacts. For example, the SAB clearly informed EPA that proper nutrient criteria development and application required 

consideration of habitat differences. EPA ignored all critical habitat factors known to control whether or how nutrient 

impact uses in lakes, streams or canals (depth, scour, light, substrate, floating plants, detention time, etc.). 

Comment ID 1479-1.001.009 

Author Name: Reynolds J. 

Organization: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 

FKAA is committed to supporting EPAs efforts to develop NNC, but the final rules must consider all of the 

environmental trade-offs, be achievable, be based on sound science and must factor in all of the economic impacts. 

FKAA has worked diligently to meet very stringent water quality criteria. We would ask that EPA build upon these efforts 

as you move forward. We remain committed to working with you and your staff as this process moves forward. For any 

additional questions, please do not hesitate to call myself of Tom Walker, PE, FKAA Director of Engineering at 305-295­

2140 for any further questions you might have. 

Comment ID 1480-1.001.003 

Author Name: Wong E. 

Organization: City of Northport 

Any proposed NNC must be realistic, appropriate, attainable, practicable and implementable. 

Comment ID 1482-1.001.025 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2108
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

VI. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria Meets Scientific Validity Requirements of 

the Clean Water Act. 

EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria clearly meet the scientific requirements of the Clean Water Act. Section 

304(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act provides that EPA shall publish: 

criteria for water quality accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge (A) on the kind and extent of all identifiable 

effects on health and welfare including, but not limited to, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life, shorelines, 

beaches, esthetics, and recreation which may be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water, 

including ground water; (B) on the concentration and dispersal of pollutants, or their byproducts, through biological, 

physical, and chemical processes; and (C) on the effects of pollutants on biological community diversity, productivity, 

and stability, including information on the factors affecting rates of eutrophication and rates of organic and inorganic 

sedimentation for varying types of receiving waters. 

When states adopt water quality criteria, they must "protect the designated use." The criteria must "be based on sound 

scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use." "For waters 

with multiple use designations, the criteria shall support the most sensitive use." 40 C.F.R. § 131. Il( a)(l). The rule goes 

on to state: 

(b) In establishing criteria, States should: (1) Establish numerical values based on: (i) 304(a) Guidance; or (ii) 304(a) 

Guidance modified to reflect site-specific conditions; or (iii) Other scientifically defensible methods; (2) Establish 

narrative criteria or criteria based upon biomonitoring methods where numerical criteria cannot be established or to 

supplement numerical criteria. 

The rule states a preference for numeric criteria. Narrative criteria are only recommended "where numerical criteria 

cannot be established." 

EPA has provided significant background documentation to demonstrate that the numeric nutrient criteria reflect the 

latest scientific knowledge and are based on a sound scientific rationale. They are specifically designed to protect the 

most sensitive designated uses for Class I and Class Ill waters. 

The federal courts have upheld EPA rules, like other federal agency actions, where they were not "arbitrary and 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A). This standard of 

review is "exceedingly deferential." See Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 526 F.3d 1353, 1359-60 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting 

Fund for Animals, lnc. v. Rice, 85 F.3d 535, 541 (11th Cir. 1996)).1n addition, where, as here, an agency's technical 

expertise is involved, "a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential." Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural 

Res. Def Council, 462 U.S. 87, 103 (1983); see also Environmental Coal. of Broward County v. Myers, 831 F.2d 984, 

986 (11th Cir. 1987) (courts should defer to agency determinations in the case of "complex environmental statutes such 

as the Clean Water Act"). 

Comment ID 1496.001.005 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2109
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Henry A. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1497.001.005 

Author Name: Thomas C. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1498.001.004 

Author Name: Remer M. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1499.001.005 

Author Name: Thuemler R. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1500.001.005 

Author Name: Dowdell M. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2110
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1501.001.004 

Author Name: Copps J. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1502.001.006 

Author Name: Bell J. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1503.001.004 

Author Name: Anglin P. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1504.001.004 

Author Name: Lane R. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2111
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1505.001.004 

Author Name: Dugger D. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1506.001.004 

Author Name: Huckaby V. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1507.001.004 

Author Name: Watford N. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur. 

Comment ID 1508.001.004 

Author Name: Knutson J. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2112
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1509.001.004 

Author Name: Walker J. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1510.001.004 

Author Name: Rieveschl A. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1511.001.004 

Author Name: Calhoun B. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1530.001.037 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

XI. SECTION IILA.(2). OF THE PROPOSED RULE, TITLED BACKGROUND ON EPA'S DERIVATION OF PROPOSED 

NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS, GOES 

BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT, IN THAT IT REQUIRES DOWNSTREAM 

PROTECTION VALUES WHEN INSTREAM PROTECTION VALUES SHOULD BE PROTECTIVE OF THE 

DESIGNATED USE. EPA'S ACTIONS PROPOSED IN SECTION III.A.(2) OF THE PROPOSED RULE ARE 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2113
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

THEREFORE UNLAWFUL. 

EPA made certain assumptions about downstream impacts[10] and requirements to protect against downstream 

impacts. It is not clear why EPA has undertaken a process to establish numeric criteria for streams and rivers first if it is 

necessary to establish criteria to protect the downstream waters first. 

In this section, EPA states at pg 4183: 

In proposing numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters, EPA developed numeric nutrient criteria to 

support a balanced natural population of flora and fauna in Florida lakes and flowing waters, and to ensure, to the 

extent that the best available science allows, the attainment and maintenance of the WQS of downstream waters. 

Where numeric nutrient criteria do not yet exist, in proposed or final form, for a water body type that is downstream from 

a lake or flowing water (e.g., estuaries) in Florida, EPA has interpreted the currently applicable State narrative criterion, 

"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 or fauna," to ensure that the numeric criteria EPA is proposing would not result in nutrient 

concentrations that would "cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna" in such downstream 

water bodies. EPA's actions are consistent with and support existing Florida WQS regulations. 

[10] Again, CCUA acknowledges the March 17, 2010 letter from Assistant Administrator Peter S. Silva to FDEP 

Secretary Michael Sole. However, for the reasons stated above in footnote 1, CCUA is offering this comment on 

Downstream Protection Values. 

Comment ID 1532-1.001.003 

Author Name: Stacey P. 

Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

Although the "best available science" was used to develop the Rule, it appears to be inadequate to the purpose and 

suffers from the same problems that have hampered numeric criteria development over the past decade or more. 

CTDEP's comments will focus on these concerns. 

The scientific evidence and proposed methodologies used in the Proposed Rule do not provide a functional basis for 

numeric criteria that is scientifically supportable, protective o[ the environment and practicable to implement. 

Comment ID 1532-1.001.005 

Author Name: Stacey P. 

Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

The Proposed Rule and supporting documentation, primarily the "Technical Support Document for EPA's Proposed 

Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh Waters", or the "TSD", have not adequately 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2114
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

disclosed the scientific underpinning and justifications necessary to a complete public evaluation and review. As a 

result, the adequacy of the science may be called into question. More fundamentally, the relationships between nutrient 

concentration and water quality are not well supported and contain significant levels of uncertainty that add 

considerable risk to attaining the intended environment outcomes. 

Given the potential impact of the Proposed Rule for Florida and as a precedent for other states, standards for quality 

assurance and peer review should be discussed, and include reference to those exercises in the TSD to fully support 

the goals of "best available" and "good science". State and public concerns over adequacy of the science for 

developing numeric nutrient criteria must be addressed as "best available" does not necessarily speak to the quality or 

the suitability of the data and science for the expressed purpose. As examples, there is no reference at all to a Quality 

Assurance Project Plan or "QAPP", which is required by EPA, and frequent references to peer reviews in the proposed 

rule are without reference to specifics. Strong, supporting information from the peer review exercise as to reviewer 

concerns and how they were addressed is essential to the effectiveness of public comment that EPA seeks. 

A QAPP is an essential component of the analysis used to develop this Proposed Rule since it promotes both quafity 

assurance of data and, equally important, development of goals and objectives to be attained through a rigorous 

application of the scientific method of hypothesis testing. 

Adherence and responsiveness to the QAPP assures that "best available science" is documented, and an accurate 

representation. Without a QAPP and its guiding principles, the exploration of data could be subject to biases driven by 

preconceived expectations for outcomes that may not truly exist. Equally important, the viability of numeric nutrient 

criteria and how broadly they can be applied must be demonstrated through strict adherence to the scientific process. 

Without clearly defined data quality objectives, the conclusions could become random and arbitrary, subject to the 

expediencies of achieving an end that may not be supportable in application. Further, insightful alternative 

interpretations of data and/or contradictory findings might be dismissed or ignored. 

Similarly, peer reviews are fundamental to scientific supportability. In reviewing the peer review comments on the 

proposed criteria approach that preceded and supported the TSD (EPA's "Proposed Methods and Approaches for 

Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Waters"), substantive commentary was directed at the 

approach, and many constructive suggestions forimprovement were provided. It is not readily apparent whether those 

concerns were fully addressed, as responses to the comments were sometimes vague, e.g., "The approaches reflect 

the best available data and analysis" or "This comment was considered, the analysis was pursued, and is addressed in 

the TSD for EPA's proposed rule". A more detailed analysis and reporting on the peer comments would be helpful to the 

public in their assessment and formulating their opinions and comments for improving the Rule. 

Other responses to peer reviewer comments appear to deviate from EPA's expressed objective of developing nutrient 

criteria supported by good science. Connecticut shares with EPA the same high objective of environmental protection 

as other states and the public hold, and the supporting principle that scientific rigor is a prime determinant of success. 

However, some responses to the peer review seem to run counter to the objectivity of the process. Most notably, 

"...regional criteria derivation cannot account for every natural factor constructing lakes as there is a trade-off between 

adequately accounting for differences among natural drivers to reduce natural variability and developing a classification 

structure that can be implemented in a manner that is feasible within the resource constraints of water quality 

agencies."[1] More directly stated, "The complexity of ecological conditions has to be weighed against the parsimony 

which benefits implementation.''[2] One could argue that it is the complexity of ecological conditions that we should 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2115
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

protect, not defile with the expedient, but potentially ill-suited criteria that can produce unknown consequences. EPA 

should be clearer on their motivations and describe how they provided a balance between expediency, cost, and 

effectiveness, all primary concerns that we share. 

In short, expediency and cost should never trump scientific certainty - they should follow scientific validation to build 

efficiency into the process. Although Connecticut readily acknowledges that resource limitations can sometimes slow 

progress, it is certainly not our position or desire to compromise good science principles and risk environmental goal 

attainment in the name of expediency and cost savings. There are ample lessons in management where ill-founded 

short cuts have produced the opposite effect, wasteful of time and money and a detriment to environmental 

improvement. 

[1] Page 3, U.S. EPA. Undated. EPA Responses to "External Peer Review of EPA's 'Proposed Methods and 

Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Waters'", Health and Ecological Criteria 

Division (4304T), OST, Washington, DC. 

[2] Ibid. Page 10. 

Comment ID 1549.001.005 

Author Name: Gilkey D. 

Organization: Gilkey Organization 

Also it is very important that the nutrient criteria and standards be based on good science, with solutions that are 

equitable and cost effective. 

Comment ID 1615-1.001.008 

Author Name: Dinneen J. 

Organization: Volusia County Public Works 

Many of the comments below consider the scientific support of the proposed NNC and highlight the demand for strong 

scientific justification in light of potentially high fiscal consequence. In general, even though EPA used many of the 

scientific methods considered by the FDEP, EPA added a number of methodologies that do not stand up to the balance 

of scientific support and fiscal consequence. 

Comment ID 1615-1.001.019 

Author Name: Dinneen J. 

Organization: Volusia County Public Works 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2116
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Final General Comment: EPA's approaches, although based to a large degree on FDEP data and analyses, do not 

provide sufficient scientific validation to warrant the significant fiscal consequences to surface water discharges in 

Florida, nor do they demonstrate that Florida waters need nutrient protection to this degree. 

Comment ID 1617-1.001.010 

Author Name: Ammerman D. 

Organization: Florida Water Environment Association and WateReuse Florida 

Lastly, given the complexities of these issues and the tremendous costs of regulatory action we believe it is incumbent 

on EPA to take a methodical, technically defensible approach to developing NNC, and they should do so in conjunction 

with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida's numerous technical experts in this field. 

Comment ID 1617-1.001.011 

Author Name: Ammerman D. 

Organization: Florida Water Environment Association and WateReuse Florida 

To summarize, we are asking for EPA to: 

• Take adequate time to develop rules that are based on sound science and good economic sense, and do so in 

conjunction with the FDEP and Florida stakeholders 

• Acknowledge the value of nutrients in reclaimed water. 

• Allow for the consideration of nutrient loading as opposed to nutrient concentrations with respect to intermittent 

discharges to surface waters in conjunction with beneficial reuse programs 

• Address the many other technical concerns raised including recognition of historical surface water quality and the 

success of existing nutrient management efforts 

• Provide us the details and basis for the EPA cost estimates to meet the rule requirements 

We would be happy to meet with EPA staff to discuss this further. 

Comment ID 1647-1.001.012 

Author Name: Kates K. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2117
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

Technical Comments 

General Criteria 

Requirement for Sound Scientific Basis 

The EPA, according to its own regulations, must adhere to a sound, scientific approach when formulating its rules and 

criteria. There is much speculation and, in many instances, evidence to refute the EPA's claim that there is a direct 

correlation between elevated nutrient levels (total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP)) and water body impairment. 

Per 40 CFR 131, Subpart B; 

"... (a) Inclusion of pollutants: (1) States must adopt those water quality criteria that protect the designated use. Such 

criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the 

designated use. For waters with multiple use designations, the criteria shall support the most sensitive use." 

Comment ID 1715-1.001.007 

Author Name: Wilson C. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 

EPA relies on Florida Department of Environmental Protection's impaired water bodies list to develop the Nutrient Rule. 

EPA's data selection process is highly selective and fails to consider hundreds of valid and readily available data points 

for south Florida and the EAA in particular. Furthermore, EPA ignored water bodies that were not impaired for nutrients 

in developing its benchmark for the Nutrient Rule. The resulting data set is biased and skewed and fails to represent the 

natural variability in canals across south Florida. In the EAA, EPA relied on only one single data point that is 35 years 

old. The data fails to meet the basic premise in the Clean Water Act and in EPA's own regulations, which is to use 

"sound scientific rationale" when developing water quality standards. EPA must revisit the data set relied on for south 

Florida and analyze all the available data. Much of the data ignored by EPA is included in the EPD's "Joint Submittal" to 

be made part of this Administrative Record. 

Comment ID 1722-1.001.006 

Author Name: Cunniff L. 

Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 

5. Many of the data points used do not represent consecutive years of valid (4 quarters) data. Many years lack a 

consistent (4) four quarters worth of data or there are gaps between years. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2118
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1722-1.001.012 

Author Name: Cunniff L. 

Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 

11 . Quarterly monitoring to meet minimum sampling requirements is more practical and economical for local 

government finances. 

Comment ID 1723-1.001.004 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: East Charlotte Drainage District 

Finally, the proposed rule does not set forth implementation protocols or criteria. For example, there is no discussion on 

monitoring requirements, how compliance will be determined, or sufficiency of data. Implementation criteria are 

essential for regulatory compliance and the proposed rule simply leaves the regulatory public guessing. 

Comment ID 1724-1.001.004 

Author Name: Busha M. 

Organization: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 

3. Council endorses the Palm Beach County League of Cities recommendation that statewide numeric nutrient criteria 

be established through a science-driven process with adequate time to address concerns of regulated communities and 

with appropriate time-frames for achieving compliance. 

Comment ID 1725-1.001.001 

Author Name: Nyhus S. 

Organization: Flaherty & Hood, P.A. on behalf of Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

Attached please find the comments of the Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board (MESERB) 

regarding the above-referenced docket. MESERB's 38 local government unit members and five engineering/industrial 

associate members are very concerned about the structure and content of this proposal and the precedent it sets by 

deviating from accepted and scientifically-defensible criteria derivation procedures. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions or require additional information, I may 

be reached at 507-281-6190 x3006 or dlane@rochestermn.gov. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2119
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1729.001.007 

Author Name: Fugett A. 

Organization: 

6. EPA's proposed criteria would designate biologically healthy streams as impaired. Waters that EPA previously 

approved as healthy and meeting their designated use through the site specific analysis of Florida's total maximum daily 

load (TMDL) program would nevertheless be considered impaired under the proposed criteria. 

Comment ID 1759-1.001.004 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Steward, P.A. on behalf of Babcock Property Holdings, LLC 

Secondly, the EPA's reliance on FDEP's impaired water bodies list to develop its Proposed Rule is misplaced. The 

Florida statute that enables the development of Florida's impaired water's list reads as follows: "The list, priority ranking, 

and schedule cannot be used in the administration or implementation of any regulatory program." § 403.067(2)(a), F.S. 

Thus, the development of nutrient criteria based upon FDEP's impaired water bodies list is arbitrary and capricious at 

best. 

Comment ID 1759-1.001.008 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Steward, P.A. on behalf of Babcock Property Holdings, LLC 

Regardless, Babcock does not believe that EPA's rule is defensible because the methodology used to develop the 

Proposed Rule is flawed for the reasons discussed above. As such, Babcock believes the Proposed rule is arbitrary and 

capricious and will not withstand an administrative challenge. Babcock incorporates by reference the comments of the 

following third parties, the Florida Stormwater Association, Palm Beach County, The Orlando Utilities Commission, and 

the Technical Comment Paper submitted by the Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2120
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1766-1.001.002 

Author Name: Crotty M. 

Organization: City of Satellite Beach 

Based on comments, supported by specific examples, in both documents we can only deduce that the numeric nutrient 

criteria proposed for the waters of Florida are technically flawed, arbitrary, and potentially more harmful than helpful in 

addressing the conditions they are purported to correct. As but a few specific examples, we cite the AWAF's Case 

Study 1, where pristine streams would be determined to be impaired, Case Study 3, where the EPA approved criteria 

that would be determined to be inadequate, the identification on pages 2 and 3 of the AWAF letter that the EPA used 

criteria that would declare 25% of the baseline set of biologically healthy streams impaired, and observation that 70% of 

the stations used by EPA to establish criteria have data for only one year, and another 15% have data for only two 

years. These short periods, even to those with a modest scientific background, obviously do not capture the natural 

variability of the weather, hydrology, and biology that comprise the aquatic habitats in Florida. 

Comment ID 1768-1.001.026 

Author Name: Armingeon N. 

Organization: St. Johns River Keeper 

Fish and other aquatic life do not survive "on average", rather they survive every moment if they are to continue. If a 

water is seriously affected by unnatural algal or bacterial growth for any substantial period, that should be seen as an 

impairment. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.004 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

3. In general, there are no surface water dischargers in Florida that would currently achieve the proposed criteria at the 

point of discharge. Surface water dischargers include direct domestic and industrial wastewater discharges, backup 

reclaimed water dischargers as authorized by the Apricot Act (Section 403.086(7), F.S.), or stormwater discharges via a 

pipe or confined ditch (i.e., outfall for NPDES MS4 purposes). In surface waters that will become impaired with the new 

EPA NNC, no mixing zone is allowed, so that the NNC would have to be met at the discharge point. For surface waters 

that are not impaired, a mixing zone is allowable, so that dilution of the effluent is possible. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.006 

Author Name: Payne J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2121
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

As a result of these findings, no surface water discharge (point source or MS4) will be allowed into nutrient impaired 

waters without extremely high levels of treatment with long-term maintenance, energy consumption and carbon 

emission costs and consequences. Therefore, to support a policy with very financially onerous consequences, the 

environmental benefit has to be extreme and the science behind it sufficiently robust. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.035 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

Proposed Criteria Must Be Practicable 

• Numeric nutrient targets are desirable for the purposes of local waterbody water quality and ecosystem management. 

• The rules must not establish harmful conditions or allow for degradation. Nutrient levels for Apalachicola Bay would 

actually be harmful to the oyster population. 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.009 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District

 It appears that EPA excluded total nitrogen and total phosphorus data from their analysis if water quality samples were 

derived from an impaired water body. Unfortunately, Florida's water bodies may appear impaired (e.g., have low 

dissolved oxygen concentrations) even if those water bodies have not been harmed by anthropogenic influences (e.g., 

low dissolved oxygen concentrations may be a natural consequence of relatively high levels of groundwater inputs as 

well as significant contributions from wetlands). Therefore, the LRD believes EPA should have only excluded from 

analysis those nitrogen and phosphorus samples derived from water bodies impaired due to elevated nutrient 

concentrations. Thus, EPA should re-evaluate their statistical analyses using all available nutrient data except those 

samples derived from water bodies truly impaired by nutrients. 

Comment ID 1780-1.001.001 

Author Name: Piper R. 

Organization: Florida Power and Light Company 

Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments on the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) rule for Florida's lakes and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2122
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

flowing waters, as published at 75 Fed. Reg. 4174 (January 26, 2010). 

1. EPA Should Reconsider Its Necessity Determination

 EPA appears to have relied substantially on phosphorus concentration data from the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection's (FDEP's) 2008 Integrated Water Quality report in asserting that Florida needs numeric 

nutrient criteria. But this report, taken at face value, shows that phosphorus levels declined by about 50% during a 

period in which Florida's population doubled. The "uptick" in concentrations in 2004 and 2005 appears to be associated 

with unusual weather patterns, not anthropogenic inputs. Additionally, data on file with EPA demonstrate very 

substantial reductions of nutrient discharges into several major waterbodies in Florida, including Lake Apopka, Tampa 

Bay, the Lower St. Johns River, and Sarasota Bay. 

Comment ID 1780-1.001.004 

Author Name: Piper R. 

Organization: Florida Power and Light Company 

3. EPA's Proposed Rule is Based on Inadequate Data

 EPA's proposed instream protective criteria for streams rely on insufficient data. Well over half of the sampling 

stations used by EPA have data for only one year, and another substantial percentage have data for only two years out 

of the 19 year sampling period. Accordingly, year to year variability is not accounted for in EPA's analysis. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.002 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

As described in more detail in the enclosed comments, these proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and 

flowing waters confirm that EPA could not develop scientifically defensible numeric standards within the timeframes 

imposed by EPA's Consent Decree with EarthJustice. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.017 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

EPA cannot show that its proposed numeric criteria are better suited to meet the goals of the CWA than the current 

approach employed by Florida because it cannot demonstrate that its criteria will ensure that the designated uses are 

met. In fact, because EPA has not identified the threshold level of nutrients required by the various waterbodies in 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2123
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Florida, EPA cannot demonstrate that its proposed nutrient standards will even have a beneficial effect on designated 

uses. Unlike standards for toxic chemicals, it cannot be assumed that increasingly stringent nutrient criteria will produce 

water quality improvements. There is a threshold at which more stringent nutrient criteria will actually harm water 

quality because nutrients are essential to a healthy aquatic ecosystem. 

Comment ID 1787-1.001.002 

Author Name: Spratt J. 

Organization: Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association 

The state of Florida and all its representative industries have taken the initiative to protect and preserve our unique and 

valuable water resources. Florida has accumulated a vast quantity of data on its lakes, flowing waters and estuaries; 

more than any other state in the Union. By utilizing this data along with sound science, economic and technical 

feasibility, Florida has taken the necessary steps to ensure the future preservation and protection of our diverse water 

bodies. 

Comment ID 1790-1.001.007 

Author Name: Rota M. 

Organization: Gulf Restoration Network 

Similarly, the methods for determining whether other water body types (rivers, springs, spring runs, clear streams, 

South Florida canals, etc.) comply with the standard must be strengthened. Samples should be taken at least monthly 

and utilize a seasonal median. 

Comment ID 1792-1.001.009 

Author Name: Putnam A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

The level of disagreement in the methodology of these regulations is enough for any policy maker to develop an 

alternative and more realistic approach to cleaning Florida's water bodies. However, uncertainty in the methodology is 

not the only reason for EPA to consider when establishing these regulations. 

Comment ID 1797-1.001.040 

Author Name: Braswell S. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2124
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

In the alternative, Florida Farm Bureau Federation asks that the EPA consider the following: 

• Correct technical deficiencies within the proposed rule, 

• Provide clear and concise implementing provisions, 

• Provide viable alternative regulatory approaches, and 

• Recognize the state's existing TMDLs as SSAC. 

Comment ID 1800-1.001.002 

Author Name: Gong S. 

Organization: CH2M HILL 

That said, we believe that any new water quality regulations should be defensible, science-based, and protective of the 

water bodies, while also being compatible with sustainable water resources management and regional economic 

prosperity. Man and nature must co-exist in a manner that allows balance between the built and the natural 

environments. It is inappropriate to assume that all anthropogenically-affected water bodies can be restored to predevelopment conditions, but it is equally unacceptable to allow excessive water quality degradation leading to 

unsustainable ecosystems and quality of life for people living within the affected watersheds. There can not be a black 

and white solution for NNC; an acceptable sustainable balance for the future is needed. 

Comment ID 1802-1.001.004 

Author Name: Torres E. 

Organization: City of Casselberry 

In light of this, any new, more restrictive criteria, such as NNC, must be reasonable, attainable, and scientifically sound 

for the City to be able to support them. EPA has not demonstrated with any level of certainty that NNC meets any of 

these three criteria. Therefore, the City objects to the proposed NNC and requests that the items proposed herein are 

thoroughly addressed before any further consideration of these criteria. 

Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (407) 262-7725, ext. 1233. 

Comment ID 1810-1.001.002 

Author Name: Young L. 

Organization: Clean Water Network of Florida 

In general, we believe that the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has fashioned scientifically 

sound, legally proper and economically reasonable numeric criteria. We do, however, have serious concerns regarding 

certain portions of the Florida standards proposal. In particular, the proposed rules regarding determining compliance 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2125
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

with the criteria by particular water bodies (duration and frequency), allowing for "modified criteria" for certain lakes, site 

specific criteria and the appropriate design flow condition should be corrected in the final standards. We also have 

serious concerns regarding the "alternative regulatory approaches and implementation mechanisms" and "proposed 

restoration water quality standards provision" of the rules. Further, we wish to make clear, as EPA implicitly states, that 

many of the provisions in the EPA proposal would not be appropriate if applied to waters outside of the State of Florida. 

Comment ID 1810-1.001.007 

Author Name: Young L. 

Organization: Clean Water Network of Florida 

III. The Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters should be adopted with 

corrections. 

A. General Comments 

The proposed criteria numbers are supported by a sound scientific rationale. Further, the method for choosing the 

criteria is in accord with prior EPA methods for setting criteria and the criteria that have been chosen are also supported 

in many cases by independent collaborating evidence. 

Comment ID 1814-1.001.002 

Author Name: Stephens N. 

Organization: Manufacturers Association of Florida 

While Florida manufacturers understand the value of clean water, we believe that a reasonable, affordable, and 

deliberate approach is called for that is based on sound science. 

Comment ID 1814-1.001.010 

Author Name: Stephens N. 

Organization: Manufacturers Association of Florida 

We remain hopeful that EPA will resolve its concerns with Florida's water quality in a way that is scientifically defensible, 

realistically achievable, and affordable. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Comment ID 1830.001.005 

Author Name: Blair S. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2126
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management 

DERM also recommends refinement of the portion of the rule that determines how adopted criteria will be applied or 

how compliance will be assessed. Criteria that have been established based upon aggregation of data from a region 

(particularly a very large geographic area) should not be applied on a small site-specific basis, or on a point of 

discharge basis. Compliance with the criteria should be determined on a basin or watershed segment, not at a sole 

monitoring location. DERM supports the concept of a "not to exceed" criteria that would identify ecologically significant 

perturbations before two or three years pass or in a localized portion of a water body. DERM also supports setting the 

duration for compliance assessment of the "long term" to be comparable with the State of Florida assessment period for 

"Verified" impaired waters. 

Comment ID 1834-1.001.002 

Author Name: Bronson C. 

Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Given the limitations in the state of the science, and the insufficient time allowed by EPA to develop the proposed 

numeric nutrient criteria, it is not surprising that our review finds that the January 26th EPA proposal is technically 

flawed and arbitrary. 

Comment ID 1834-2.001.006 

Author Name: Bronson C. 

Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

EPA's preamble also contains other unsupported or contradictory statements. At 75FR4183 it states that "the Agency 

submitted its criteria derivation methodologies, developed by EPA in close collaboration with FDEP experts and 

scientists to an independent, external scientific peer review in July 2009." What EPA does not state is that the review of 

their methodology by the independent Science Advisory Board has resulted in a highly critical draft report from the SAB, 

faulting EPA's methods as Flawed and unworkable. In citing FDEP's collaboration, EPA also fails to mention that FDEP 

has submitted comments highly critical of EPA's criterion development methodologies, which deviate in significant ways 

from the FDEP approach. They also fail to mention that as recently as September, 2007, EPA approved a FDEP 

numeric nutrient development work plan for development of criteria by the state. 

Comment ID 1835-1.001.006 

Author Name: Nieto G. 

Organization: Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto on behalf of New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta 

Corporation 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2127
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

3. EPA improperly excluded data from its derivation of the criteria. EPA's review of the readily available data is flawed 

and does not withstand scrutiny. As explained in the Technical Comment Paper, EPA eliminated significant data for 

reasons that are unclear and not scientifically defensible. In addition, EPA ignored numerous other readily-available and 

relevant data. As many as 350 additional data points were ignored and never assessed by EPA in this Nutrient Rule. 

The data ignored by EPA is included in the Joint Submittal to the Administrative Record. At a minimum, EPA must 

consider and assess these data prior to finalizing the Nutrient Rules. [5] 

[5] In the EAA, EPA failed to consider the S-8 Basin entirely. EPA excluded all data from the S-8 basin, even though it is 

not listed for any constituents in DEP's impaired water bodies list. This failure alone, changes the numeric values 

proposed in the rule. When this failure is coupled with EPA's exclusion of water bodies not impaired for nutrients, the 

proposed values for south Florida change dramatically, as further explained in the Technical Comment Paper. 

Comment ID 1836.001.006 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Causing many waters currently deemed healthy by established science-based criteria to be classified as impaired, 

resulting in an inefficient diversion of limited management resources in an attempt to improve water quality without 

ecological or public benefit. 

Comment ID 1871.001.003 

Author Name: Lassiter K. 

Organization: Coalition of Boynton West Residential Associations 

2. Please conduct a valid scientific study of the problems and all possible solutions, working in concert with the State of 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Comment ID 1875.001.002 

Author Name: Barnett B. 

Organization: City Council, City of Naples 

However, we respectfully advise that we share some concerns expressed by state agencies charged with the protection 

of Florida's environment and other organizations regarding the proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria. We ask that the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency continue to work closely with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and 

other florida scientists to ensure the final criteria is scientifically sound, is site specific to address the actual nutrients 

causing impairment, is economically attainable, and provides the intended-benefit. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2128
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1889.001.001 

Author Name: Hays-Stroman C. 

Organization: 

Hello,
 

The water quality in Florida is substandard and monitored by community (which scarcely occurs). They need restrictions
 

and bravo! if you demand better.
 

I know that we can not drink water without filtering it (and then boiling) nor use ice from our own ice maker. Florida of all
 

states should INSIST on better monitoring of water quality. To allow the old methods of community monitoring will not
 

be good for any of us at any time now, in the past or certainly not in the future.
 

Please give them restrictions, make them take water standards out of the dreaded community monitoring protocols
 

(which are nonexistent) and let us feel safe with a glass of water again.
 

Comment ID 1891.001.001 

Author Name: Hutchens D. 

Organization: Public Works and Utilities, City of Dunedin 

The City of Dunedin has serious concerns with the Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) as currently proposed . While we 

recognize that Numeric nutrient targets are desirable for the purposes of local waterbody water quality and ecosystem 

management, these NNC's must be realistic, appropriate, attainable, practicable and implementable . Any such criteria 

must be based on good data and good "science in order to justify the required long term community investments (which 

are likely to be considerable) in construction, operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment facilities required to 

achieve compliance. Information we have seen to date calls into question the factors mentioned above. 

Comment ID 1892-1.001.001 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

Our firm is the General Counsel to the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority ("Authority"). On behalf 

of the Authority, we file these policy comments regarding the EPA Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's 

Lakes and Flowing Waters, including canals, as set forth in 75 Federal Register 4174 (January 26, 2010). The Authority 

has concerns regarding the scientific validity of the proposed rules as well as the cost implications for the Authority and 

its members. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2129
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1899.001.003 

Author Name: Haley J. 

Organization: Lake Worth Drainage District 

Lake Worth Drainage District supports the Clean Water Act and agrees that the water quality in many waters in the 

State of Florida need improvement. The achievement of this should be through a more cooperative and fiscally 

responsible effort between the EPA and the people of the State of Florida. Standards must be developed that are 

appropriately science based and site specific for the water body and its intended use. 

Comment ID 1918.001.003 

Author Name: Larson A. 

Organization: 

As for DEP, I think a though & extensive investigation into their actions, permitting processes should be done 

immediately. Enclosed you will find the documents relating to the questionable actions of the Director of DEP and his 

direction for all water testing done in the last several years. If the work of Thomas White was in question, what numbers 

were you at the EPA given? I have enclosed the PEER Release #1. Also the changes stated by DEP #2 and the 

answers given by Thomas White #3. If DEP wanted to throw out data showing high pollution levels. What data have the 

FDEP presented to the EPA? 

Comment ID 1921.001.007 

Author Name: Monroe M. 

Organization: Fellsmere Farms 

We urge you to consider the facts: 

- Hasty evaluation of massive amounts of data (one file alone with over 446,000 data points) 

- Lack of distinction between human impairment and natural impairment. (Naturally high P and N) 

Comment ID 1943.001.002 

Author Name: Woehlcke L. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2130
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

2. I believe that the rule fails to document a certain enough scientific basis for relating the regulated parameters to any 

desired outcomes. I don't think we should regulate nutrient based on general tendencies e.g. nutrient levels of such and 

such would be less likely to be accompanied by algal blooms. 

Comment ID 1943.001.003 

Author Name: Woehlcke L. 

Organization: 

3. The rule justification fails to document when the "science", such as there is, leaves off and judgement as to risk 

assessments enter. There is a tendency to leave the effects of the risk assessments undiscussed and the basis for the 

selection undisclosed. e.g. the percentile values from the statistical relationships that are chosen. These need to be 

explicitly discussed. 

Comment ID 1943.001.004 

Author Name: Woehlcke L. 

Organization: 

4. Some of the selections of patterns of requirements are definitely non-scientific. e.g. treating phosphorus and nitrogen 

standards as independent requirements. In reality plant growth is dependent on both the amounts and the relative 

abundance. This choice is a risk assessment choice but what really are the risk effects if the standards for one are met 

but the standards for the others are not? 

Comment ID 1943.001.005 

Author Name: Woehlcke L. 

Organization: 

5. I think that specifications for the frequency, number of samples, and techniques for gathering the samples to test 

compliance need to be specified in the rule and these need to be consistent with the procedures followed in establishing 

the values used to establish the underlying relationships. I do not see this in the rule or in the documentation 

Comment ID 1964.001.003 

Author Name: Olmos G. 

Organization: Alachua County Environmental Protection Department 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2131
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Based on the proposed nitrogen criteria, between half and three quarters of our streams would meet the proposed total 

nitrogen criteria. Alachua County believes we can improve total nitrogen levels by education and outreach and 

implementing local regulations to reduce the input of nitrogen into our surface waters. 

We appreciate the opportunity to offer our comments. Please contact me if you have any question regarding this email. 

Comment ID 1968.001.001 

Author Name: Hays-Stroman C. 

Organization: 

The water quality in Florida is substandard and monitored by community (which scarcely occurs). They need restrictions 

and bravo! if you demand better. 

I know that we can not drink water without filtering it (and then boiling) nor use ice from our own ice maker. Florida of all 

states should INSIST on better monitoring of water quality. To allow the old methods of community monitoring will not 

be good for any of us at any time now, in the past or certainly not in the future. 

Please give them restrictions, make them take water standards out of the dreaded community monitoring protocols 

(which are nonexistent) and let us feel safe with a glass of water again. 

Comment ID 1970.001.005 

Author Name: Clevenger C. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 1972.001.003 

Author Name: Ross A. 

Organization: 

Monthly monitoring of samples taken when nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur has to happen. 

Comment ID 1974.001.004 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2132
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Lucky H. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.007 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

E. No Database Exists for Establishment of Regional or Statewide Criteria 

The quantity and quality of data nutrient necessary to establish even a rough estimate of short term ambient water 

quality conditions does not exist for anyone waterbody. It would be an impossible task to set regional or statewide 

nutrient criteria for Florida waters using Florida's STORET database or a subset of data from Florida STORET or 

Florida DEP's IWR database.[3] By proposing numeric criteria for Florida lakes and streams, EPA is asserting that it has 

reviewed enough nutrient data to predict the ambient water quality within all of Florida's several thousand lakes and 

streams at all places and at all times and with such precision that EPA could set criteria for all Florida lakes and 

streams that will assure that no imbalance of natural populations of flora or fauna ever occurs. No statistical or scientific 

basis exists to support such a position. 

1. Data Are not Available to Establish Proper Sampling Design for Individual Water Bodies much less for All Florida 

Surface Waters 

A crude estimate of water quality conditions for anyone year would require a detailed sampling plan with samples taken 

at least monthly and preferably more frequently from randomly selected sampling points throughout the waterbody. 

Students of limnology, aquatic ecology, environmental engineering and other areas of study that require an assessment 

of water quality are often taught to create grid overlay for a map of a lake or stream and assign numbers to each cell in 

the grid. Using a random numbers generator or equivalent approach, sampling stations are randomly selected. Water 

samples are 

collected from those stations and processed to measure the various water quality parameters of interest. If sampling is 

to be performed monthly, the selection of random samples would be repeated for the next sampling day in the next 

month to be sampled. The random sampling approach, as opposed to sampling from fixed sampling sites, may be used 

in an attempt to capture spatial variability and collect a data set conducive to the application of parametric statistical 

tools. But any number of decisions made in setting up the sampling regime may result in additional sources of 

variability. 

The time of the month selected for monthly samples may affect the outcome of the sampling effort. The time of day will 

influence the data collected--especially for parameters linked to diel changes in conditions such as dissolved oxygen. 

The depth of the samples could affect the results of the sampling effort as could any number of factors not within the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2133
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

control of the researcher, e.g., wind, rain, cloud cover. In sum, even when applying a well designed sampling plan,
 

conditions within the control of the investigator (frequency, location, time of day) and beyond the control of the
 

researcher (weather)
 

affect the ultimate characterization of the ambient water quality in the one waterbody under study.
 

The number of samples taken influences the investigation as well. It is a basic tenet of parametric statistics that the
 

greater the number of samples (where "n" equals the number of samples) the more accurate an estimate of the true
 

value a parameter will be. If a single grab sample for TN or TP was taken each month from ten randomly selected
 

stations, there would be 120 data points for anyone parameter. When analyzed using simple statistical tools, the
 

variability surrounding the estimate may be as large as the estimated value itself.
 

The monthly data may be used to establish a monthly average or mean. In data taken from nature, it is not uncommon
 

to have an average or mean of the samples reported as, for example, 2.0 mg/l plus or minus 1.5 mg/l. This means that,
 

due to variability within the data set, the true value we are trying to estimate could be as low as 0.5 mg/l or as high as
 

3.5 mg/l although the high and low numbers statistically less likely to occur than numbers close to the mean of 2.0 mg/l, 

If the following month's samples resulted in at mean of 2.3 plus or minus 1.4, the estimate of the true value would range 

between 0.9 mg/l to 3.7 mg/l. The ranges or confidence intervals around each monthly mean overlap and therefore the 

difference between the two estimates is not "statistically significant." Because of the overlap, it cannot be said that the 

increase from 2.0 mg/l to 2.3 mg/l is. really an increase at all; statistically, the two numbers are not different. Such 

variability decreases as the number of samples (n) increases. However, for most florida waters, available data are 

limited to a handful of sampling events and cannot be held out as appropriately representative or as the product of a 

careful sampling design as described above. 

2. Data Drawn from a Wikipedia of Water Quality Data 

Data in the florida STORET database may come from DEP, water management districts, cities, counties, universities 

and any number of different sources. While all data submitted to STORET is supposed to have been collected and 

processed pursuant to the florida DEP's quality assurance/quality control rule, the very fact that data come from multiple 

sources with varying levels of funding and expertise raises data quality issues. 

Most importantly, the database is filled with a potpourri of data taken at different times at different places and for 

different reasons-all within the same waterbody. DEP may go out and take water samples upstream and downstream of 

a sewage plant discharge pipe in conjunction with a biological survey. That data goes into STORET. A water 

management district might take water quality data after a fish kill prompted by spraying herbicide in the same 

waterbody. That data goes into STORET. A local municipality may have been collecting data from a single station for a 

number of years to monitor stormwater discharges after extreme storm events. That data goes into STORET.[4] 

When EPA or the Florida DEP reviews data from the waterbody to make some sort of regulatory decision--e.g. the 

establishment of numeric criteria or derivation of a TMDL-the agencies are looking at an amalgam of unrelated data, 

none of which is truly reflective of the ambient water quality of the lake or stream under study. More likely, the data are 

biased because the data was taken in response to some sort of environmental perturbation or event or for a single 

targeted purpose. Even where a large accumulation of data may be found in Florida's STORET database, it usually has 

been taken from a single fixed station and is not reflective of the waterbody as a whole, i.e., a single station cannot 

capture spatial variability even if there are enough data points from a single sampling site to observe temporal or 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2134
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

seasonal trends in the data. Further, sample locations are typically chosen based on ease of access or convenience 

rather than based on sampling design associated with holistic waterbody characterization. This imparts a potentially 

substantial bias into the database. In sum, there are not enough nutrient data collected under proper conditions in 

Florida's database to accurately characterize the water quality of a single waterbody, much less develop broader 

generic relationships between or among parameters from which numeric nutrient criteria may be derived. 

3. Available Data Insufficient to Derive Criteria 

However, both EPA and DEP attempted to do just that-derive a meaningful relationship between nutrient data and 

biological response variables using the odd and disparate mixture of nutrient data from Florida STORET. The Florida 

DEP hoped that statistical analyses of its nutrient data would demonstrate a strong correlation with, for example, the 

stream condition index, rapid periphyton surveyor an alternative biological index. Neither agency could establish a 

sufficient relationship between the nutrient data and the biological response variables in streams from which numeric 

nutrient criteria could be developed. 

[3] STORET is short for "storage and retrieva!." EPA established an early version of the STORET database: (legacy 

STORET) and in recent years has worked to upgrade the database (Modernized STORET). Because third parties can 

enter data into the database, there is reason to question the integrity of the data. Florida has established its own Florida 

STORET database the intent of which is to limit data to Florida data having met the requirements of Florida's QAJQC 

rule. Chapter 62-160, Fla. Admin. Code. However, as with EPA's STORET database, data is entered by a variety of 

entities and that data is collected for diverse purposes. STORET is essentially a Wikipedia for water quality data. The 

IWR database is a subset of the STORET data used to assess waters for § 303(d) purposes. 

[4] Imagine a medical database containing the results of blood work from a variety of patients and an insurer decides to 

use a subset of data from the pooled medical database to assess a person's health for purposes of writing a life 

insurance policy. The proposed insured medical information is mixed with that of a diabetic, a cancer patient and a 

patient suffering from high cholesterol. The same phenomena occurs when attempting to use the STORET database to 

predict conditions in anyone lake or stream or, as in the case of the proposed rule, for all lakes and streams in the 

region. The ills of one waterbody may affect the: diagnosis of the other. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.013 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

G. No Methodology Exists for Developing Regional or Statewide Criteria 

Upon learning of EPA's January 14, 2009 determination, several Florida trade groups forwarded Clean Water Act 

§505(b) letters to EPA emphasizing that no generally accepted scientifically defensible methodology existed for 

establishing statewide, or even regional, numeric nutrient criteria. EPA's own Science Advisory Board has advised the 

agency that its attempt to use statistical means to bridge the gaps existing between stressor and response as proposed 

in EPA's Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation did not address cause-and-effect and "[ijf the numeric 

criteria are not based upon well-established causative relationships, the scientific basis of the water quality standards 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2135
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

will be seriously undermined." 

Judicial deference to EPA's use of mathematical models only goes so far. A rational relationship must exist between the 

model and the known behavior of the substance under study,[6] EPA's application of a model may be ruled arbitrary 

and capricious "[fjor want of a rational relationship between the model and the molecule.:[7] A court "cannot excuse the 

EPA's reliance upon a methodology that generates apparently arbitrary results.:[8] "Merely asserting that the choice 

was 'reasonable' is not enough."[9] 

[6] Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 28 F.3d 1259, 1265 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

[7] [d. at 1266. 

[8] Appalachian Power Company v. EPA, 252 F.3d 1026, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 

[9] Id. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.041 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Indeed, there is no peer-reviewed methodology that is generally accepted within the scientific community as the proper 

means for deriving numeric nutrient criteria in streams, lakes or estuaries. The tremendous efforts of DEP, and the 

many experts serving on the TAC or otherwise assisting in the criteria development process, attest to the fact that the 

science does not exist to support the policy. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.048 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

8. The Proposed Criteria Are Inconsistent with EPA Guidance 

EPA has failed to adhere to its own guidance in proposing the numeric nutrient criteria for Florida waters as published in 

its Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection ofAquatic Organisms and their 

Uses, PB85-227049.. EPA's 1985 guidance counsels: 

Criteria should attempt to provide a reasonable and adequate amount of protection with only a small possibility of 

considerable overprotection or underprotection. It is not enough that a national criterion be the best estimate that can be 

obtained using available data; it is equally important that a criterion be derived only if adequate appropriate data are 

available to provide reasonable confidence that it is a good estimate. Therefore, these National Guidelines specify 

certain data should be available if a numerical criterion is to be derived. If all the required data are: not available, usually 

a criterion should not be derived. On the other hand, the availability of all required data does not ensure that a criterion 

can be derived. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2136
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

As noted above, many of EPA's sampling sites used to derive its stream data had only one or two data points take over 

a six year period. EPA's early guidance makes very clear that if that data are not available, a numeric criterion cannot 

be derived and even if all the data are available, that does not mean that a numeric criterion can be derived. This is 

exactly the situation faced by EPA is this instance. There simply is no way to derive numeric nutrient criteria for the 

State of Florida with the data available.[34] 

As noted by EPA: "Rather than try to reinterpret a criterion that is neither useful or valid, it is better to develop a more 

appropriate way of stating criteria." (Emphasis added). 

[34] EPA also notes: "Criteria must be used in a manner that is consistent with the way in which they were derived if the 

intended level of protection is to be provided in the real world." "A statement of a criterion as a number that is not to be 

exceeded at any time or place is not acceptable because few, if any, people who use criteria would take it literally and 

few, if any, toxicologists would defend a literal interpretation." 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.063 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

During 2009, the FDEP also invested tremendous effort into the derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida surface 

waters by summarizing the numerous studies and data collection efforts that had been ongoing for several years with 

the goal of establishing numeric nutrient criteria ( website: 

http://www.dep.state.f1.us/water/wgssp/nutrients/tacarchive.htm). FDEP held numerous TAC, stakeholder and other 

meetings to discuss progress and receive public, peer and stakeholder input. As of summer 2009, the FDEP was 

nearing completion of a draft rule with numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and springs. 

The State of Florida thus has made extensive efforts to derive numeric nutrient criteria for managing its water bodies, 

and it has one of the best overall scientific data collection and TMDL programs, as acknowledged by the USEPA 

(USEPA, 2010a). In spite of these extensive efforts and one of the most comprehensive databases, the FDEP has 

concluded that for some systems (e.g., particularly streams) the simple stressorresponse relationship approach does 

not work (nutrients explain < 10% or less of the variance in the State's database) (Frydenborg and Bartlett, 2009; 

Frydenborg and Weaver, 2009). The USEPA has ignored the scientific evidence that these are complex relationships 

and still insists that simple univariate relationships should be mandated, contrary to existing scientific understanding. 

Comment ID 2233.001.003 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

1. EPA's premise for both need and urgency in establishing new nutrient standards in Florida are misplaced. CF 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2137
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

believes that the Agency has asserted exaggerated claims of both health related impacts and purported benefits of its 

proposed nutrient standards for Florida in the preamble to the rule, as well as in public presentations and 

communications subsequent to its publication. The Agency has not provided any real evidence for such claims, and CF 

is concerned that without "fact checking" itself, EPA risks misinforming the public about basic health and science. CF 

believes that the need for any new regulation should fairly stand on the facts coupled with sound, science based riskbenefit analyses. The public welfare is not well served by inaccurate or misleading public health representations. 

Comment ID 2233.001.012 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

CF believes EPA's proposed rule to establish new nutrient WQS in Florida is not supportable in its current form, 

because it scientifically flawed, overly broad, will not achieve its intended goals, and will be prohibitively expensive to 

Floridian citizens. CF respectfully requests EPA withdraw its proposal in order to allow the State to continue develop 

appropriate nutrient criteria for Florida's uniquely complex surface waters. 

Should EPA decide to move forward with finalization of the rule in spite of these deficiencies, CF recommends the 

following: 

-EPA should correct misleading and inaccurate information concerning public health impacts associated with nutrient 

pollution and unsubstantiated benefits of the proposed rule. 

Comment ID 2407.001.004 

Author Name: Brandt K. 

Organization: 

2. Monitoring must be such that a true representation of water quality can be established. This monitoring should 

include required sampling of all assessment areas, with at least monthly samples taken during the season when 

nutrient-related impairments are most likely to occur 

Response 

Comment IDs: 0597.001.002, 0611.001.002, 0613.001.003, 0839.001.005, 0864.001.006, 0960.001.004, 0997.001.003, 

1033.001.002, 1063.001.002, 1072.001.004, 1115.001.003, 1120.001.002, 1135.001.004, 1185.001.002, 1464-1.001.042 

Response: Thank you for your comments supporting EPA’s establishment of numeric nutrient criteria using sound scientific 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2138
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

methods and data provided through the State of Florida’s numerous resources. 

Comment IDs: 0644.001.003, 1088-1.001.007 

Response: EPA has noted the progress of Florida’s water quality programs; see the preamble for more information about EPA’s 

determination, which provides more detail and also refer to the response to the comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 

1416-1.001.010, 1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1. With respect 

to the science behind the rule, see the TSD and preamble. EPA used photographs such as the one cited in the comment as 

illustrations to show how nutrients can affect the waters of Florida. Canals are not a part of this rulemaking. 

Comment ID: 0645.001.003 

Response: EPA has noted the progress of Florida’s water quality programs; see the preamble for more information about EPA’s 

determination, which provides more detail on the issue of Florida’s progress and EPA’s expectations for the rule. See the preamble 

for more information about EPA’s determination, which provides more detail and also refer to the response to the comment group, 

Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in 

issue category II.D.1. 

With respect to the science behind the rule, see the TSD and preamble. EPA notes that the use of SPARROW for estuarine DPVs is 

no longer a part of this rulemaking. Estuary DPV derivations have been deferred to the estuary and coastal waters proposal (see the 

preamble for details). The preamble also provides information about EPA’s plans for implementation and the timeframes. 

Comment ID: 0703.001.004 

Response: With respect to the science behind the rule, see the TSD and preamble. EPA notes that the use of SPARROW for 

estuarine DPVs is no longer a part of this rulemaking. Estuary DPV derivations have been deferred to the estuary and coastal waters 

proposal (see the preamble for details). Please see the TSD and preamble for details about the relationship of lake criteria and 

biological responses. EPA has revised the approach for lake DPVs, see the preamble and TSD for details. Criteria for canals and 

other inland waters in South Florida have been deferred to the next rulemaking. See the Economic Analysis and preamble for 

additional details on EPA’s costing methodology. 

Comment ID: 0726.001.006 

Response: With respect to the science behind the rule, see the TSD and preamble. See the preamble for information about the state 

and federal regulatory tools and their use. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2139
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID: 0732.001.014 

Response: EPA used the best available data, much of it the same as used by FDEP in their proposed criteria, to develop the rule. For 

more information about the scientific basis for the regulation, see the preamble and TSD. 

Comment ID: 0900-1.001.005 

Response: EPA collaborated and consulted extensively with scientists from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s 

(FDEP) Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration to ensure that the best available scientific data and methods were 

used in EPA’s analyses. In developing this rule, EPA worked with FDEP scientists to ensure that available and reliable data on 

nutrients collected in the State of Florida were assessed and that scientific methods appropriately took into account the diversity of 

waterbodies in Florida. EPA conducted an external, independent scientific peer review of those methods following EPA’s own Peer 

Review Handbook. In addition, in the January 2010 proposal and August 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and 

Request for Comment, EPA invited public feedback on the scientific methods and approaches, so that the Agency could thoroughly 

consider and evaluate additional views. In the final rule, EPA has continued to provide a transparent record of the Agency’s 

scientifically based decision-making process by providing to the public the scientific methods, approaches, and data EPA used to 

support its final rule. This record can be used to verify and reproduce EPA’s promulgated criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. 

Comment ID: 0903.001.001 

Response: Please see the preamble and TSD for the details about the scientific basis of the criteria. EPA also notes that Florida 

currently administers a stormwater program. 

Comment ID: 0949.001.003 

Response: Please see the preamble and TSD for the details about the scientific basis of the criteria. See the preamble for more 

information about EPA’s determination, which provides more detail about sources of nutrients and also refer to the response to the 

comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233­

1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1. 

Comment ID: 1229.001.002 

Response: Please see the preamble and TSD for the details about the scientific basis of the criteria, including information about 

temporal and seasonal variability. 

Comment ID: 1759-1.001.008 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2140
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Response: EPA has provided ample evidence throughout the development of the rule that demonstrates the scientific basis and that
 

it is not arbitrary and capricious. Please see the preamble and TSD for the details about the scientific basis of the criteria.
 

Comment ID: 1780-1.001.004
 

Response: EPA considered distributions composed of annual averages computed from a minimum of 4 samples and from all
 

available samples, and determined that some additional imprecision was introduced in the estimates of annual averages in particular
 

WBIDs with less than 4 samples. However, by including all samples, more WBIDs were included in the reference distribution,
 

which increased EPA's confidence in estimates of the 90th percentiles of the benchmark distributions.
 

Hence, additional imprecision in averages computed for individual WBIDs was outweighed by increased confidence in the entire
 

benchmark distribution. See the TSD for more detailed information.
 

Comment ID: 1921.001.007
 

Response: Please see the preamble and TSD for the details about the scientific basis of the criteria. See the preamble for more
 

information about EPA’s determination, which provides more detail about sources of nutrients, and also refer to the response to the
 

comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233­

1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1.
 

Comment ID: 1943.001.003
 

Response: EPA collaborated and consulted extensively with scientists from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s
 

(FDEP) Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration to ensure that the best available scientific data and methods were
 

used in EPA’s analyses. In developing this rule, EPA worked with FDEP scientists to ensure that available and reliable data on
 

nutrients collected in the State of Florida were assessed and that scientific methods appropriately took into account the diversity of
 

waterbodies in Florida. EPA conducted an external, independent scientific peer review of those methods following EPA’s own Peer
 

Review Handbook. In addition, in the January 2010 proposal and August 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and
 

Request for Comment, EPA invited public feedback on the scientific methods and approaches, so that the Agency could thoroughly
 

consider and evaluate additional views. In the final rule, EPA has continued to provide a transparent record of the Agency’s
 

scientifically based decision-making process by providing to the public the scientific methods, approaches, and data EPA used to
 

support its final rule. This record can be used to verify and reproduce EPA’s promulgated criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus.
 

Also, please see the preamble and TSD for the details about the scientific basis of the criteria. EPA notes that risk assessment is not
 

a component of criteria development.
 

Comment ID: 2233-1.001.063
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2141
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Response: EPA acknowledges that there are a large number of streams and lakes in Florida, and characterizing the condition of 

every individual waterbody is difficult. However, the EPA notes that the data sets used to derive criteria for inland criteria are 

extensive, distributed across the State such that they are spatially represented, and are thought to represent the major natural 

gradients existing in the State (e.g., color and alkalinity for lakes, natural range of TP and TN for streams). See TSD for statistics 

regarding the number of samples and representativeness. 

Given that EPA has analyzed a representative sample of Florida’s waterbodies, the resulting criteria are expected to be applicable to 

the vast majority of these waterbodies. For those cases in which the characteristics of a particular waterbody departs significantly 

from the characteristics of EPA’s database, EPA points to the SSAC process as the appropriate procedure to account for sitespecific characteristics. 

EPA acknowledges that ambient measurements of nutrient and chl-a concentrations are variable, as pointed out by the commenter. 

However, EPA applied a methodical quality assurance procedure to ensure that data used in the analysis were collected using 

standardized procedures (see TSD). Furthermore, to minimize the effects of variability within particular sites, EPA computed 

annual average values in both stream and lake data sets. EPA agrees that the number of samples used in the analysis can affect the 

inferences one can make statistically from the data, and EPA’s statistical analyses quantify the confidence limits on each of the 

statistics that were estimated (see TSD). In the case of the both stream and lakes criteria, EPA determined that the confidence with 

which different statistical parameters could be determined was sufficient to inform criteria derivation. 

EPA acknowledges that data used to derive criteria may have been collected for purposes other than to inform criterion derivation. 

However, EPA’s statistical analysis for deriving streams and lakes criteria are not strongly affected by the particular reason a 

sample was collected. For streams, EPA relied on data collected from benchmark sites, where relatively few human activities 

affected the stream characteristics. Hence, the concern that different samples may reflect different human activities (as voiced by 

the commenter) was minimized. 

For lakes, EPA analyzed the relationship between nutrient concentrations and chl-a, and this relationship would be expected to 

generally hold true regardless of other factors that may influence a particular sample. Please see TSD and preamble of this final 

rule for citations of specific evidence that nutrients cause increased concentrations of chl-a. 

Therefore, for both lakes and streams, EPA notes that the statistical analyses that were used minimized the potential effects of 

temporary “environmental perturbations”. 

EPA considered a range of stressor-response analyses for deriving nutrient criteria in Florida and concluded that there was a lack of 

the necessary combination of data regarding potentially confounding factors that influence the empirically estimated relationship 

between nutrients and response variables to support the use of the stressor-response methodology in this context. As noted above, 

the statistical analyses used by EPA to derive criteria are not strongly affected by perturbation to individual samples. Also, EPA 

methodically evaluated the quality of the data before performing any statistical analysis (see TSD). 

Comment ID: 2233.001.012 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2142
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Response: EPA collaborated and consulted extensively with scientists from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s 

(FDEP) Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration to ensure that the best available scientific data and methods were 

used in EPA’s analyses. In developing this rule, EPA worked with FDEP scientists to ensure that available and reliable data on 

nutrients collected in the State of Florida were assessed and that scientific methods appropriately took into account the diversity of 

waterbodies in Florida. EPA conducted an external, independent scientific peer review of those methods following EPA’s own Peer 

Review Handbook. In addition, in the January 2010 proposal and August 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and 

Request for Comment, EPA invited public feedback on the scientific methods and approaches, so that the Agency could thoroughly 

consider and evaluate additional views. In the final rule, EPA has continued to provide a transparent record of the Agency’s 

scientifically based decision-making process by providing to the public the scientific methods, approaches, and data EPA used to 

support its final rule. This record can be used to verify and reproduce EPA’s promulgated criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. 

Also, please see the preamble and TSD for the details about the scientific basis of the criteria. EPA notes that its final regulation 

uses approaches similar to those propose by FDEP in July 2009. EPA has also clarified its economic analysis (see the final 

Economic Analysis), and supplemented and clarified the public health information presented in the proposal preamble (see the 

preamble for details). 

Comment IDs: 1464-1.001.007, 1482-1.001.025, 1810-1.001.002, 1810-1.001.007, 1889.001.001, 1968.001.001 

Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comments that stated the proposed criteria were needed and derived using 

scientifically-defensible approaches and data. Commenters are referred to the preamble and TSD for additional scientific evidence 

supporting the derived criteria. 

EPA also notes that general concerns of the comment about the appropriateness of the modified criteria for lakes and site-specific 

criteria. Please see the preamble for explanations of the basis and need for these important provisions. With respect to appropriate 

design flows and restoration standards, EPA deleted proposed regulatory provisions (see the preamble). With respect to the 

statement asking EPA to reaffirm that “many of the provisions in the EPA proposal would not be appropriate if applied to waters 

outside of Florida,” EPA notes that the provisions of the rule apply as stated in the preamble, and that this comment is outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

Comment ID: 1787-1.001.002 

Response: Florida has taken many steps to protect and preserve their water resources and EPA refers the commenter to the preamble 

for additional information on EPA’s use of sound science to derive the numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment IDs: 0579.001.001, 0584-1.001.001, 0586.001.002, 0589.001.003, 0601.001.003, 0620.001.003, 0620.001.008, 

0621.001.003, 0623.001.003, 0623.001.006, 0640.001.002, 0661.001.003, 0661.001.005, 0668.001.002, 0684.001.004, 

0714.001.009, 0717.001.002, 0730.001.002, 0743.001.005, 0746.001.007, 0750.001.006, 0755.001.003, 0767.001.002, 

0769.001.002, 0774.001.002, 0778.001.002, 0780.001.004, 0786.001.003, 0790.001.004, 0798.001.002, 0802.001.001, 

0806.001.002, 0810.001.004, 0821.001.003, 0822.001.002, 0825.001.007, 0861.001.002, 0883.001.006, 0887.001.003, 

0899.001.008, 0947.001.001, 0956.001.002, 0958.001.003, 0964.001.007, 0993.001.003, 1009.001.015, 1041.001.002, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2143
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

1045.001.002, 1067.001.003, 1077.001.002, 1083.001.003, 1103.001.006, 1136.001.002, 1138.001.003, 1163.001.005, 

1166.001.002, 1189.001.002, 1211-1.001.005, 1223.001.002, 1235.001.002, 1235.001.005, 1244.001.003, 1255.001.006, 1260­

1.001.006, 1261-1.001.006, 1298-1.001.007, 1304-1.001.002, 1335.001.003, 1335.001.011, 1339.001.003, 1347.001.004, 1349­

1.001.002, 1349-1.001.003, 1349-1.001.004, 1370-1.001.050, 1414-1.001.011, 1443-1.001.005, 1462-1.001.007, 1473-1.001.002, 

1474-1.001.039, 1476-1.001.002, 1476-1.001.003, 1476-1.001.009, 1479-1.001.009, 1480-1.001.003, 1532-1.001.003, 

1549.001.005, 1615-1.001.008, 1615-1.001.019, 1617-1.001.010, 1617-1.001.011, 1647-1.001.012, 1724-1.001.004, 1725­

1.001.001, 1782-1.001.002, 1792-1.001.009, 1800-1.001.002, 1802-1.001.004, 1814-1.001.002, 1814-1.001.010, 1834-1.001.002, 

1871.001.003, 1875.001.002, 1891.001.001, 1892-1.001.001, 1899.001.003, 1943.001.002 

Response: EPA employed the principles of sound science using the best available scientific information. 

EPA promulgated these criteria to protect Florida’s lakes, streams, and springs from the adverse effects of nitrogen and phosphorus 

pollution. In this action, EPA has interpreted and quantified Florida’s existing narrative criteria (at rule 62-302.530(47)(b), F.A.C) 

for nutrients, which will provide the State with an important baseline for monitoring and assessment, a basis for pollution permit 

limits and best management practices to limit nonpoint pollution, and targets for remediating poor water quality due to nitrogen or 

phosphorus pollution. EPA employed the principles of sound science using the best available scientific information. 

EPA’s guiding principles in deriving numeric water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus are that they be based on a sound 

scientific rationale and be protective of the state’s designated uses (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)). EPA engaged scientific experts within 

and outside the Agency to carefully consider the best available data and scientific information in support of the Agency’s final rule. 

EPA did not consider factors unrelated to the science or designated uses, such as cost to attain the water quality standards, because 

they were contrary to the CWA and the Agency’s implementing regulations that emphasize and isolate the roles of science and 

protectiveness in the decision-making process. 

EPA put into practice its standards for scientific defensibility for its final rule, which are consistent with the generally accepted 

principles of scientific integrity practiced within the scientific community. These principles include: collaboration with scientific 

experts within and outside EPA; the use of the best available scientific data and information; conducting an external, independent 

peer review of EPA’s methods and approaches; inviting public feedback; creating a transparent record of scientifically-based 

decisions; ensuring consistency with EPA peer-reviewed and published technical guidance; and reproducibility of EPA’s analyses 

and results. The combination of all of these factors yields a final rule that EPA based on sound science, with confidence that the 

rule will provide the intended protections for Florida’s unique and sensitive aquatic resources. 

EPA collaborated and consulted extensively with scientists from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration to ensure that the best available scientific data and methods were used in 

EPA’s analyses. In developing this rule, EPA worked with FDEP scientists to ensure that available and reliable data on nutrients 

collected in the State of Florida were assessed and that scientific methods appropriately took into account the diversity of 

waterbodies in Florida. EPA conducted an external, independent scientific peer review of those methods following EPA’s own Peer 

Review Handbook. The results of this peer review are in the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, in the January 2010 proposal 

and August 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, EPA invited public feedback on the 

scientific methods and approaches, so that the Agency could thoroughly consider and evaluate additional views. In the final rule, 

EPA has continued to provide a transparent record of the Agency’s scientifically based decision-making process by providing to the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2144
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

public the scientific methods, approaches, and data EPA used to support its final rule. This record can be used to verify and 

reproduce EPA’s promulgated criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. 

In addition, comments that stated EPA has no scientific basis for the MCLs for nitrates are referred to the EPA’s drinking water 

regulations (http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrate.cfm), which provide detailed information on the 

development and basis for nitrate MCLs. 

The final criteria were developed using these sound science principles and are not a form of punishment for or “singling out” of 

Florida because Florida collected water quality data or for any other reason. Please refer to the preamble and TSD for more 

information on the scientific basis for the regulation. See also the preamble, EPA's January 14, 2009 determination, and EPA's 

response to comment document (Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233­

1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1) regarding the basis for EPA's January 14, 2009 determination for more 

detail. The derived criteria are considered by EPA to be protective of designated uses and allow flexibility in implementation to 

give FDEP the ability to adjust for site-specific conditions. 

EPA notes that the DPVs for estuarine waters have been deferred and are intended to be included in the estuaries and coastal waters 

numeric nutrient criteria proposal. 

Please refer to the preamble and economic assessment for additional information on EPA’s revised cost estimates. See the preamble 

for more information about EPA’s determination, which provides more detail and also refer to the response to the comment group, 

Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in 

issue category II.D.1. 

With regard to comments about EPA’s ability to complete derivation of the criteria in a short time frame, EPA benefitted from the 

extensive experience and technical analyses performed by FDEP for parts of the technical basis; as such, EPA technical experts 

have been able to efficiently complete their analyses in the allotted timeframe. 

See also responses to section III.A.1 regarding reclaimed water and site-specific considerations. With respect to criteria that specify 

a load versus concentration, there is flexibility in the implementation of various aspects of the Clean Water Act to allow FDEP 

latitude in developing implementation activities that include loading-based allocations in NPDES permits. See also the definition of 

"criteria" in EPA's WQS regulations at 40 CFR 131.3(b), which specifies that "criteria" may be expressed as constituent 

concentrations or levels. 

In response to the comment about restoring to predevelopment levels, EPA’s methodology derives criteria that achieve balanced 

populations of natural aquatic flora and fauna (as provided in subsection 62-302.530(47(b)F.A.C.; see the TSD for additional details 

on the basis for criteria development. 

Comment IDs: 1292-1.001.011, 1292-1.001.012, 1350-1.001.008, 1476-2.001.018, 1477-1.001.022, 1834-2.001.006 

Response: EPA is not aware of any final nutrient-related technical guidance documents in which the SAB has found substantial 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2145
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

shortcomings. Nor is EPA aware of any SAB review that has focused on or included a specific consideration of the substantial 

technical data and extensive scientific analysis underlying this rule. EPA's Science Advisory Board did review a draft guidance 

document regarding the general use of empirical approaches to derive numeric nutrient criteria (i.e., stressor-response approaches). 

The SAB concluded that "the stressor-response approach is a legitimate scientifically based method for developing numeric nutrient 

criteria if the approach is appropriately applied.” The SAB's main concern regarding this guidance document was whether EPA 

provided adequate level of detail and clarity to assist independent users of these approaches. Even though the SAB’s comments 

were not addressed or directly related to the Florida-specific data and analysis supporting today’s rule, EPA appreciates and has 

carefully reviewed and taken into account the general points of the SAB’s draft guidance comments in deriving the criteria in this 

rule. Additionally, the specific methods and approaches used in this rulemaking were subject to both internal Agency as well as 

external independent peer review, in addition to extensive public comment. 

Comment ID: 1768-1.001.026 

Response: EPA has developed criteria to be protective of the designated uses of lakes and flowing waters for Florida. See the TSD 

for specific details on the scientific methodology used by EPA. 

Comment ID: 1830.001.005 

Response: EPA has provided detailed information on the compliance aspects of the regulation, in particular the duration and 

frequency components of the criteria in the preamble. EPA will also work closely with FDEP and is giving FDEP much flexibility 

in implementing the regulation. 

Comment ID: 1288-1.001.011 

Response: This final rule does not specify or recommend a number of samples to determine if a waterbody meets the criteria. 

Specific implementation requirements, such as sampling to ensure compliance, are left to the State to develop and maintain. 

Comment ID: 1288-1.001.013 

Response: The site-specific alternative criteria process allows for anyone who desires to derive and submit to EPA, copying FDEP, 

site-specific criteria to be protective of specific waterbodies; see the preamble for a description of the process and its requirements. 

Comment IDs: 1288-1.001.010, 1443-1.001.006 

Response: Assessment of waters to determine whether they are impaired is outside of the scope of the rule. EPA also developed a 

rigorous methodology for screening waters it used for developing reference conditions (i.e., benchmark sites). See the TSD for 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2146
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

additional information. 

Comment IDs: 1151.001.005, 1246.001.009 

Response: Based on the lack of supportive data to substantiate the claim, EPA was not able to determine if the referenced claim that 

85% of waters will be impaired as a result of the rule is correct. 

Comment IDs: 0646.001.007, 0675.001.004, 0895.001.008, 1045.001.006 1045.001.009, 1155.001.002 1164-1.001.007, 

1194.001.003, 1194.001.005, 1354-1.001.003, 1729.001.007, 1766-1.001.002, 1836.001.006 

Response: EPA’s analyses did not find that large percentages of Florida healthy waters would become listed as impaired resulting 

from the regulation. See the TSD for more details about the methodology EPA used. 

EPA promulgated these criteria to protect Florida’s lakes, streams, and springs from the adverse effects of nitrogen and phosphorus 

pollution. In this action, EPA has interpreted and quantified Florida’s existing narrative criteria (at rule 62-302.530(47)(b), F.A.C) 

for nutrients, which will provide the State with an important baseline for monitoring and assessment, a basis for pollution permit 

limits and best management practices to limit nonpoint pollution, and targets for remediating poor water quality due to nitrogen or 

phosphorus pollution. EPA employed the principles of sound science using the best available scientific information. 

EPA’s guiding principles in deriving numeric water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus are that they be based on a sound 

scientific rationale and be protective of the state’s designated uses (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)). EPA engaged scientific experts within 

and outside the Agency to carefully consider the best available data and scientific information in support of the Agency’s final rule. 

EPA did not consider factors unrelated to the science or designated uses, such as cost to attain the water quality standards, because 

they were contrary to the CWA and Agency’s implementing regulations that emphasize and isolate the roles of science and 

protectiveness in the decision-making process. 

EPA put into practice its standards for scientific defensibility for its final rule, which are consistent with the generally accepted 

principles of scientific integrity practiced within the scientific community. These principles include: collaboration with scientific 

experts within and outside EPA; the use of the best available scientific data and information; conducting an external, independent 

peer review of EPA’s methods and approaches; inviting public feedback; creating a transparent record of scientifically-based 

decisions; ensuring consistency with EPA peer-reviewed and published technical guidance; and reproducibility of EPA’s analyses 

and results. The combination of all of these factors yields a final rule that EPA based on sound science, with confidence that the 

rule will provide the intended protections for Florida’s unique and sensitive aquatic resources. 

EPA collaborated and consulted extensively with scientists from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration to ensure that the best available scientific data and methods were used in 

EPA’s analyses. In developing this rule, EPA worked with FDEP scientists to ensure that available and reliable data on nutrients 

collected in the State of Florida were assessed and that scientific methods appropriately took into account the diversity of 

waterbodies in Florida. EPA conducted an external, independent scientific peer review of those methods following EPA’s own Peer 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2147
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Review Handbook. The results of this peer review are included in the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, in the January 2010 

proposal and August 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, EPA invited public feedback on the 

scientific methods and approaches, so that the Agency could thoroughly consider and evaluate additional views. In the final rule, 

EPA has continued to provide a transparent record of the Agency’s scientifically based decision-making process by providing to the 

public the scientific methods, approaches, and data EPA used to support its final rule. This record can be used to verify and 

reproduce EPA’s promulgated criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. 

Comment IDs: 1774-1.001.004, 1774-1.001.006 

Response: EPA’s review of the Harper and Baker 2007 report cited by the commenter found that the “mean event mean 

concentration (EMC) values” used by Harper and Baker represent a range of mean EMCs for TN from 0.70 to 1.52 mg/L with a 

mean of these mean values of 1.15 mg/L (the value reported by the commenter). Similarly for TP, the range of mean EMCs was 

0.02 to 0.10 mg/L with a mean TP value of 0.055 mg/L. These data show that mean of the mean EMCs for stormwater runoff from 

undisturbed lands will be able to meet the final criteria for Florida streams. 

Comment IDs: 1304-1.001.018, 1304-1.001.039, 1304-1.001.061, 1359-1.001.005, 1473-1.001.014, 1474-1.001.027, 1786­

1.001.017 

Response: EPA provides additional information in the preamble to show multiple studies that indicate cause and effect relationships 

between nutrients and algal growth in lakes and flowing waters. Additionally, EPA promulgated these criteria to protect Florida’s 

lakes, streams, and springs from the adverse effects of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. In this action, EPA has interpreted and 

quantified Florida’s existing narrative criteria (at rule 62-302.530(47)(b), F.A.C) for nutrients, which will provide the State with an 

important baseline for monitoring and assessment, a basis for pollution permit limits and best management practices to limit 

nonpoint pollution, and targets for remediating poor water quality due to nitrogen or phosphorus pollution. EPA employed the 

principles of sound science using the best available scientific information. 

EPA’s guiding principles in deriving numeric water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus are that they be based on a sound 

scientific rationale and be protective of the state’s designated uses (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)). EPA engaged scientific experts within 

and outside the Agency to carefully consider the best available data and scientific information in support of the Agency’s final rule. 

EPA did not consider factors unrelated to the science or designated uses, such as cost to attain the water quality standards, because 

they were contrary to the CWA and Agency’s implementing regulations that emphasize and isolate the roles of science and 

protectiveness in the decision-making process. 

EPA put into practice its standards for scientific defensibility for its final rule, which are consistent with the generally accepted 

principles of scientific integrity practiced within the scientific community. These principles include: collaboration with scientific 

experts within and outside EPA; the use of the best available scientific data and information; conducting an external, independent 

peer review of EPA’s methods and approaches; inviting public feedback; creating a transparent record of scientifically-based 

decisions; ensuring consistency with EPA peer-reviewed and published technical guidance; and reproducibility of EPA’s analyses 

and results. The combination of all of these factors yields a final rule that EPA based on sound science, with confidence that the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2148
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

rule will provide the intended protections for Florida’s unique and sensitive aquatic resources. 

EPA collaborated and consulted extensively with scientists from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration to ensure that the best available scientific data and methods were used in 

EPA’s analyses. In developing this rule, EPA worked with FDEP scientists to ensure that available and reliable data on nutrients 

collected in the State of Florida were assessed and that scientific methods appropriately took into account the diversity of 

waterbodies in Florida. EPA conducted an external, independent scientific peer review of those methods following EPA’s own Peer 

Review Handbook. The results of this peer review are included in the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, in the January 2010 

proposal and August 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, EPA invited public feedback on the 

scientific methods and approaches, so that the Agency could thoroughly consider and evaluate additional views. In the final rule, 

EPA has continued to provide a transparent record of the Agency’s scientifically based decision-making process by providing to the 

public the scientific methods, approaches, and data EPA used to support its final rule. This record can be used to verify and 

reproduce EPA’s promulgated criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. 

Comment ID: 1155.001.007 

Response: EPA has revised its criteria since proposal and refers the commenter to the TSD for more detail. 

Comment IDs: 0627.001.001, 0643.001.005, 0651.001.004, 0674.001.005 

Response: EPA disagrees generally, and specifically disagrees that EPA's proposal acknowledges that water quality objectives in 

Florida can be reasonable achieved through continued implementation of the TMDL program, which requires for the waterbody to 

be identified as assessed and listed as impaired before even contemplating establishing a TMDL. EPA also disagrees that today's 

final rule will serve as a disincentive to sharing data in TMDLs, particularly due to the fact that EPA-approved or established 

TMDLs may serve as the basis for a SSAC under this rule. See the preamble for more information about EPA’s determination, 

which provides more detail and also refer to the response to the comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 

1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1. 

Comment ID: 0731.001.007 

Response: EPA reviewed the public comments and has revisited its technical analysis (see the TSD) and the economic analysis (see 

the Economic Analysis). 

Comment IDs: 0854.001.001, 0854.001.006 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter, but no specific data were provided. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2149
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment IDs: 1476-1.001.008, 1476-2.001.009, 1476-2.001.011 

Response: EPA refers the commenter to the TSD for details on the assumptions and statistical methodologies used. 

Comment ID: 0922-1.001.033 

Response: EPA’s approaches (reference condition, stressor-response, and laboratory data) rely on various statistical methodologies 

that have been peer reviewed and published as guidance (see U.S. EPA. 2000a. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: 

Lakes and Reservoirs. EPA-822-B-00-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC and U.S. 

EPA. 2000b. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. EPA-822-B-00-002. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.)The statistical approaches used are well established and generally accepted 

by the scientific community. 

Comment ID: 1359-1.001.009 

Response: The use of Vollenweider is well-established and has been published in peer-reviewed journals. However, in reviewing 

comments and considering additional approaches in response to stakeholder input, EPA has re-evaluated the proposed reliance on 

the Vollenweider method in developing criteria for downstream protection of lakes. As discussed in the preamble and TSD, EPA 

requested additional comment on other approaches and determined that there are alternative methods that provide for more sitespecific analysis that have therefore been included in the final rule. 

Comment ID: 1443-1.001.006 

Response: See the TSD for information on the assumptions EPA made regarding reference conditions. 

Comment IDs: 1532-1.001.005, 1759-1.001.004 

Summary of comments: The proposed rule and supporting documentation, primarily the "Technical Support Document for EPA's 

Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh Waters", or the "TSD", have not adequately 

disclosed the scientific underpinning and justifications necessary to a complete public evaluation and review. The main objections 

are that (1) there is no reference at all to a Quality Assurance Project Plan or "QAPP", which is required by EPA, and (2) frequent 

references to peer reviews in the proposed rule are without reference to specifics. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that ambient measurements of nutrient and chl-a concentrations are variable, as pointed out by the 

commenter. However, EPA followed the Agency's Quality Assurance guidelines and applied a methodical quality assurance 

procedure to ensure that data used in the analysis were collected using standardized procedures (see TSD). As such, the technical 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2150
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

analyses conducted as part of this effort followed a Quality Assurance Project Plan. Furthermore, to minimize the effects of 

variability within particular sites, EPA computed annual average values in both stream and lake data sets. EPA agrees that the 

number of samples used in the analysis can affect the inferences one can make statistically from the data, and EPA’s statistical 

analyses quantify the confidence limits on each of the statistic that was estimated (see TSD). In the case of the both stream and 

lakes criteria, EPA determined that the confidence with which different statistical parameters could be determined was sufficient to 

inform criteria derivation. 

EPA promulgated these criteria to protect Florida’s lakes, streams, and springs from the adverse effects of nitrogen and phosphorus 

pollution. In this action, EPA has interpreted and quantified Florida’s existing narrative criteria (at rule 62-302.530(47)(b), F.A.C) 

for nutrients, which will provide the State with an important baseline for monitoring and assessment, a basis for pollution permit 

limits and best management practices to limit nonpoint pollution, and targets for remediating poor water quality due to nitrogen or 

phosphorus pollution. EPA employed the principles of sound science using the best available scientific information. 

EPA’s guiding principles in deriving numeric water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus are that they be based on a sound 

scientific rationale and be protective of the state’s designated uses (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)). EPA engaged scientific experts within 

and outside the Agency to carefully consider the best available data and scientific information in support of the Agency’s final rule. 

EPA did not consider factors unrelated to the science or designated uses, such as cost to attain the water quality standards, because 

they were contrary to the CWA and Agency’s implementing regulations that emphasize and isolate the roles of science and 

protectiveness in the decision-making process. 

EPA put into practice its standards for scientific defensibility for its final rule, which are consistent with the generally accepted 

principles of scientific integrity practiced within the scientific community. These principles include: collaboration with scientific 

experts within and outside EPA; the use of the best available scientific data and information; conducting an external, independent 

peer review of EPA’s methods and approaches; inviting public feedback; creating a transparent record of scientifically-based 

decisions; ensuring consistency with EPA peer-reviewed and published technical guidance; and reproducibility of EPA’s analyses 

and results. The combination of all of these factors yields a final rule that EPA based on sound science, with confidence that the 

rule will provide the intended protections for Florida’s unique and sensitive aquatic resources. 

EPA collaborated and consulted extensively with scientists from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration to ensure that the best available scientific data and methods were used in 

EPA’s analyses. In developing this rule, EPA worked with FDEP scientists to ensure that available and reliable data on nutrients 

collected in the State of Florida were assessed and that scientific methods appropriately took into account the diversity of 

waterbodies in Florida. EPA conducted an external, independent scientific peer review of those methods following EPA’s own Peer 

Review Handbook. The results of this peer review are provided in the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, in the January 2010 

proposal and August 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, EPA invited public feedback on the 

scientific methods and approaches, so that the Agency could thoroughly consider and evaluate additional views. In the final rule, 

EPA has continued to provide a transparent record of the Agency’s scientifically based decision-making process by providing to the 

public the scientific methods, approaches, and data EPA used to support its final rule. This record can be used to verify and 

reproduce EPA’s promulgated criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2151
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID: 1780-1.001.001 

Response: See the preamble for more information about EPA’s determination, which provides more detail and also refer to the 

response to the comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233­

1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1. 

Comment ID: 1797-1.001.040 

Response: EPA refers the commenter to the final preamble and TSD for information about the technical aspects of the regulation. 

In addition, please see the preamble for general information about the flexibilities that FDEP has in implementing the regulation. 

The preamble and TSD also illustrate the alternatives EPA considered in response to comments. See the preamble for information 

about how TMDLs will be recognized with respect to the SSAC process. 

Comment IDs: 0589.001.011, 0589.001.026 

Response: The issue that the commenter brings up illustrates why EPA is using the approaches for numeric nutrient criteria it has 

selected and are provided in detail in the TSD. EPA notes that Florida has a rich set of data, but there are examples like Palm Beach 

County, that lack local data or reference conditions. 

Comment ID: 0596.001.003 

Response: EPA used existing monitoring data to derive the criteria. These data were above the practical quantitation levels of the 

testing methodologies used for analysis of the water samples. 

Comment ID: 1964.001.003 

Response: EPA encourages activities mentioned in the comment, such as education, outreach, and other efforts at the local level 

that can be instrumental in reducing the input of nitrogen into our surface waters. 

Comment IDs: 0734.001.010, 1359-1.001.056 

Response: EPA provides detailed information about how nutrients impact waters (see the preamble). In addition, the TSD provides 

detailed descriptions about the methods used and the decision-making process for establishing the final criteria. EPA considered the 

use of a variety of models, including SPARROW for estuarine DPVs and has deferred finalizing estuary DPVs to be included with 

the estuary criteria development. EPA recognizes the concern of the commenters about the application of the numeric nutrient 

criteria to reclaimed water. EPA notes that numeric nutrient criteria will apply to all Class I and Class III inland surface waters as 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2152
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

designated by FDEP. Current Florida regulations would apply with respect to stormwater treatment or reclamation ponds that are 

designated as Class I or III. Similarly, reclaimed water that is used for irrigation and other surface applications would be subject to 

any current FDEP regulations, such as reasonable assurance requirements, that apply. 

Comment IDs: 1372-1.001.013, 1715-1.001.007, 1722-1.001.006, 1835-1.001.006 

Response: See the response to Comment ID 2233-1.001.063 above and the TSD for information about data selection and quality. 

EPA has deferred finalizing estuary DPVs to be included with the estuary criteria development. 

Comment IDs: 0796.001.002, 0888.001.002, 1371-1.001.007, 1774-1.001.035 

Response: Today’s final criteria interpret and translate existing State narrative standards to assure attainment of designated uses 

that the State of Florida has set. Florida’s current water quality designated uses for Class I and III waters reflect a decision by the 

State as to what are appropriate, well founded and attainable water quality conditions in the State. As discussed in the preamble to 

today’s rule, there are a number of tools that are available both in this rule and at the state level to provide flexibility in how to meet 

existing standards and how to adjust criteria where warranted by more site-specific science-based analysis and data. Setting and 

adjusting state designated uses does allow for the consideration of a range of issues including economic impacts, physical 

conditions (such as hydromodification), and human caused conditions that cannot be remedied (see 40 CFR 131.10(g)). 

Comment IDs: 0845.001.006, 1352-1.001.036 

Response: EPA refers the commenter to the preamble for information on implementation. EPA has considered sources such as 

rainfall, and notes that the criteria limits are annual geometric mean concentrations, not loadings from particular sources. If 

loadings from demonstrated natural sources result in concentrations higher than the criteria, then the particular waterbody may be a 

candidate for a SSAC. 

Comment ID: 0560-1.001.002 

Response: Where water crossing State lines is impaired, Florida has the authority to develop TMDL wasteload allocations and load 

allocations that distinguish between nitrogen/phosphorus loads crossing State lines and those that originate within the State. 

Upstream states have an obligation under EPA's WQS regulations to ensure that their WQS provide for the attainment and 

maintenance of downstream state WQS. See 40 CFR 131.10(b). Issues relating to appropriate criteria for the South Florida region 

will be addressed as part of a subsequent rulemaking to develop coastal and estuarine standards and are beyond the scope of this 

rule. 

Comment IDs: 0933.001.008, 0940-1.001.004, 1355-1.001.008, 1471.001.003, 1496.001.005, 1497.001.005, 1498.001.004, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2153
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

1499.001.005, 1500.001.005, 1501.001.004, 1502.001.006, 1503.001.004, 1504.001.004, 1505.001.004, 1506.001.004, 

1507.001.004, 1508.001.004, 1509.001.004, 1510.001.004, 1511.001.004, 1722-1.001.012, 1723-1.001.004, 1790-1.001.007, 

1943.001.005, 1970.001.005, 1972.001.003, 1974.001.004, 2407.001.004 

Response: EPA considers two important aspects here: 1) technology of measurement and monitoring improves over time; and 2) 

too few data can be an easy excuse to fail to make a decision, and allow degradation to proceed. For the first, EPA’s final rule 

establishes numeric criteria but does not mandate monitoring methods, locations, or frequency. FDEP may chose to make changes 

to monitoring SOPs as necessary. EPA also recognizes the financial burden that some counties and municipalities may incur due to 

more frequent sampling and analyses. The "burden" of these errors does not fall unduly on either Type I (false positive) or Type II 

(false negative). All parties should be equally motivated to collect sufficient data to reduce errors. 

The minimum sampling requirement to characterize a lake is (1) representative sampling during each year (at least one sample in 

May - September and at least one sample in October - April), and (2) a minimum of 4 samples from each year (see preamble and 

TSD). EPA believes that the specified minimum monitoring requirements of 4 samples per year is adequate because it captures 

both cool and warm seasons and can provide an estimate of annual variability for further analysis. Commenters provided no data or 

analysis to demonstrate that alternative minimum sampling requirements would reduce false positive and false negative assessments 

at a worthwhile cost. 

Duration and frequency of the nutrient criteria are annual geometric means of nutrient and chlorophyll, calculated from the 

minimum annual data as specified above, are not to exceed the criteria more than once in a 3-year period (see final rule, preamble 

and TSD). EPA acknowledges that, in some cases, hydrological variability may occur over periods that are longer than three years, 

but does not agree that longer periods of time are required to establish lake-specific modified criteria. EPA believes that the 3-year 

evaluation period provides a sufficient representation of average lake characteristics in the majority of cases, because it balances 

both short-term and long-term variation, while not imposing undue monitoring expectations on communities. Comments did not 

provide data or analysis to demonstrate that alternative periods would reduce false positive and false negative results. See TSD for 

more details. 

EPA specified that a minimum of three years of data be used for the modified site-specific criteria to reduce the effects of variability 

in observations across consecutive years (see final rule, preamble and TSD). Across multi-year cycles, three years of data can 

characterize a great deal of the variability in the conditions within most lakes, and therefore provide appropriate criteria. However, 

three years of data may not be sufficient in some lakes and at some times. EPA recognized that long-term data are available in only 

a small proportion of lakes. EPA specified that a minimum of three years of data be used for modified site-specific criteria to 

provide for reasonably accurate modified criteria, while not unnecessarily delaying the implementation of modified criteria. 

However, when implementing modified criteria, FDEP may establish appropriate SOPs to determine whether three years of data is 

sufficient to characterize the conditions in a lake by considering long-term meteorological and hydrological records for the region in 

question 

Comment ID: 1011.001.005 

Response: See the preamble for details on which waters in Florida this regulation applies. See the response to Comment ID 2233­

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2154
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

1.001.063 above and the TSD for information about data selection and quality. 

Comment IDs: 1128.001.003, 2233.001.003 

Response: EPA strongly disagrees that it is using scare tactics or unsupported claims or data to provide a rationale for the need for 

numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. EPA has put forward information from the literature in the preamble and from the State’s own 

public records to explain and respond to questions regarding the nutrient pollution problem and the associated impacts on public 

health and the environment. There is a long, substantiated record about the causes and impacts of nutrient pollution and 

eutrophication as explained in more detail in today’s preamble. 

Comment ID: 1282.001.003 

Response: EPA recognizes that in certain situations lower nitrogen concentrations may be needed to support aquatic life and the 

proper balance of organisms in a system, even lower than what would be present for drinking water, due to the sensitivity of the 

organisms and the systems to nitrogen inputs. EPA's recommended human health criterion is less stringent than numeric nutrient 

criteria for the protection of aquatic life. This difference reflects the differences in the sensitivity of the endpoint to be protected -­

protection of human health from the toxic effects of nitrate versus protection of aquatic life from conditions, as translated by the 

State, that cause an imbalance in the natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. Today’s preamble includes a number of 

examples of surface water and groundwater that approach or exceed the 10ppm nitrate standard and reflect anthropogenic pollution. 

Comment IDs: 1355-1.001.005, 1370-1.001.041, 2233-1.001.007 

Response: See the response to Comment ID 2233-1.001.063 above and the TSD for information about data selection and quality. 

Comment ID: 1371-1.001.004 

Response: EPA refers the commenter to the response to comments 0588.001.009, et al., in section III.C.2.Q.2 for a detailed 

description of nutrients in aquatic systems. 

Comment IDs: 1475-1.001.010, 1778-1.001.009 

Response: EPA refers the commenter to the response to comments 0588.001.009, et al., in section III.C.2.Q.2 for a detailed 

description of how EPA evaluated and used the data. See also the response to Comment ID 2233-1.001.063 above and the TSD for 

information about data selection and quality. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2155
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment IDs: 1292-1.001.011, 1292-1.001.012, 1476-2.001.018, 1477-1.001.022, 1834-2.001.006, 2233-1.001.013, 2233­

1.001.041 

Response: EPA is not aware of any final nutrient-related technical guidance documents in which the SAB has found substantial 

shortcomings. Nor is EPA aware of any SAB review that has focused on or included a specific consideration of the substantial 

technical data and extensive scientific analysis underlying this rule. EPA's science advisory board did review a draft guidance 

document regarding the general use of empirical approaches to derive numeric nutrient criteria (i.e., stressor-response approaches). 

The SAB concluded that "the stressor-response approach is a legitimate scientifically based method for developing numeric nutrient 

criteria if the approach is appropriately applied. The SAB's main concern regarding this guidance document was whether EPA 

provided adequate level of detail and clarity to assist independent users of these approaches. Even though the SAB’s comments 

were not addressed or directly related to the Florida-specific data and analysis supporting today’s rule, EPA appreciates and has 

carefully reviewed and taken into account the general points of the SAB’s draft guidance comments when deriving criteria for 

the State of Florida. Additionally, the specific methods and approaches used in this rulemaking were subject to internal Agency as 

well as external independent peer review as well as extensive public comment. 

EPA promulgated these criteria to protect Florida’s lakes, streams, and springs from the adverse effects of nitrogen and phosphorus 

pollution. In this action, EPA has interpreted and quantified Florida’s existing narrative criteria (at rule 62-302.530(47)(b), F.A.C) 

for nutrients, which will provide the State with an important baseline for monitoring and assessment, a basis for pollution permit 

limits and best management practices to limit nonpoint pollution, and targets for remediating poor water quality due to nitrogen or 

phosphorus pollution. EPA employed the principles of sound science using the best available scientific information. 

EPA’s guiding principles in deriving numeric water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus are that they be based on a sound 

scientific rationale and be protective of the state’s designated uses (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)). EPA engaged scientific experts within 

and outside the Agency to carefully consider the best available data and scientific information in support of the Agency’s final rule. 

EPA did not consider factors unrelated to the science or designated uses, such as cost to attain the water quality standards, because 

they were contrary to the CWA and Agency’s implementing regulations that emphasize and isolate the roles of science and 

protectiveness in the decision-making process. 

EPA put into practice its standards for scientific defensibility for its final rule, which are consistent with the generally accepted 

principles of scientific integrity practiced within the scientific community. These principles include: collaboration with scientific 

experts within and outside EPA; the use of the best available scientific data and information; conducting an external, independent 

peer review of EPA’s methods and approaches; inviting public feedback; creating a transparent record of scientifically-based 

decisions; ensuring consistency with EPA peer-reviewed and published technical guidance; and reproducibility of EPA’s analyses 

and results. The combination of all of these factors yields a final rule that EPA based on sound science, with confidence that the 

rule will provide the intended protections for Florida’s unique and sensitive aquatic resources. 

EPA collaborated and consulted extensively with scientists from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration to ensure that the best available scientific data and methods were used in 

EPA’s analyses. In developing this rule, EPA worked with FDEP scientists to ensure that available and reliable data on nutrients 

collected in the State of Florida were assessed and that scientific methods appropriately took into account the diversity of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2156
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

waterbodies in Florida. EPA conducted an external, independent scientific peer review of those methods following EPA’s own Peer 

Review Handbook. In addition, in the January 2010 proposal and August 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and 

Request for Comment, EPA invited public feedback on the scientific methods and approaches, so that the Agency could thoroughly 

consider and evaluate additional views. In the final rule, EPA has continued to provide a transparent record of the Agency’s 

scientifically based decision-making process by providing to the public the scientific methods, approaches, and data EPA used to 

support its final rule. This record can be used to verify and reproduce EPA’s promulgated criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. 

Comment ID: 1476-2.001.076 

Response: EPA appreciates the suggestion for future research directions. 

Comment ID: 1530.001.037 

Response: EPA developed instream criteria that are protective of the designated uses. EPA recognizes that downstream protection 

values are needed, especially with regards to nutrients because certain impacts of nutrients might not be seen in the near-field but 

farther downfield where they can accumulate and result in significant adverse impacts. Moreover, the effect of nutrient enrichment 

may not be seen at a given point in time, but later when conditions are more appropriate. The need for downstream WQS protection 

is specified in EPA regulations 40 CFR 131.10(b). Today’s rule addresses the development of downstream protection values 

(DPVs) to protect downstream lakes. DPVs for coastal and estuarine waters will be developed in conjunction with the Florida 

estuarine and coastal waters criteria rule. Please see the preamble for more details on DPVs. 

Comment ID: 1918.001.003 

Response: Today’s rule is focused on the establishment of numeric criteria to interpret and translate existing Florida narrative 

nutrient standards. The issues raised by the commenter are beyond the scope of this rule. 

Comment ID: 1943.001.004 

Response: Water quality criteria serve to protect the designated use of a waterbody. The purpose of criteria is to protect water 

quality, not to identify failure and only manage after failure. Accordingly, water quality criteria, including the TN and TP criteria, 

are set at levels to protect the designated uses and prevent chlorophyll from exceeding its criteria, not to restore a lake after damage 

has been done. Because it is not possible to know in advance of a finding of use impairment (chl-a exceeding criteria) which 

nutrients have caused the impairment, protective criteria are developed and applied for both TN and TP independently. 

Commenters all agreed that nutrient limitation from a single nutrient is a site-specific attribute, and requires site-specific 

information. EPA notes that identifying nutrient limitation is after-the-fact, after aquatic life use is determined to be impaired, and 

is not protective. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2157
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Primary production in fresh water systems can be limited by available nitrogen (N) or phosphorus (P), or can be co-limited by both 

nutrients simultaneously. Early eutrophication studies clearly demonstrated P limitation and eutrophication by phosphorus 

enrichment in fresh water (e.g., Schindler 1974). Recent studies have shown that N limitation and co-limitation are more important 

in fresh water, and P-limitation is more important in saltwater, than previously recognized (e.g., Guildford and Hecky 2000, Brown 

et al. 2000, Smith 2006, Elser et al. 2007, Elser et al. 2009). 

For any given lake, it is difficult to assess a priori which nutrient is the limiting factor. To be protective of water quality, nutrient 

criteria are therefore applied for both TN and TP independently. Many comments received noted the rule does not require 

examination of which nutrient, if any, is limiting in a particular lake. Some comments stated that N is the primary limiting nutrient 

in Florida, and some stated that P is the primary limiting nutrient. Nutrient limitation due to a single nutrient is a site-specific 

attribute, and requires site-specific information. Identifying nutrient limitation for an impaired lake is after-the-fact, after aquatic 

life use is determined to be impaired, and is not protective. TMDLs and other restoration activities may require identification of 

limiting nutrients, and site-specific targeting of nutrients. 

Criteria for TN and TP were determined with simple linear regression models using each of TN and TP as independent variables. 

TN and TP are strongly correlated in the data set, which can potentially influence the accuracy of simple linear regression estimates 

of relationships between chl-a and either one of these nutrients. However, the estimated TN-chl-a and TP-chl-a represent limiting 

cases that appropriately inform criteria derivation. More specifically, the estimated TN-chl-a relationship is an accurate 

representation of the nutrient stressor-response relationship if one assumes that the majority of lakes in Florida are N-limited, 

whereas the TP-chl a relationship is an accurate estimate if one assumes that the majority of lakes are P-limited. The proportion of 

lakes that are N- or P-limited is not known, and indeed, the nature of nutrient limitation can shift over time within a particular lake. 

Hence, adoption of criteria based on the two limiting cases described above provides appropriately protective criteria. 

The final lake classes, and the criteria in the rule, answer the practical need for numeric criteria for the majority of Florida’s lakes, 

while allowing flexibility in the modified criteria for lakes unlikely to exceed the chlorophyll values. Further modification will 

require development of site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC). 

References: 

Brown, C.D., M.V. Hoyer, R.W. Bachmann, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2000. Nutrient-chlorophyll relationships: an evaluation of 

empirical nutrient-chlorophyll models using Florida and north-temperate lake data. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57: 1574-1583. 

Elser, J.J, T. Andersen, J.S. Baron, A.-K. Bergström, M. Jansson, M. Kyle, K.R. Nydick, L. Steger, D.O. Hessen. 2009. Shifts in 

lake N:P stoichiometry and nutrient limitation driven by atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Science 326, 835-837. 

Elser,J.J., M.E.S. Bracken, E.E. Cleland, D.S. Gruner, W.S. Harpole, H. Hillebrand, J.T. Ngai, E.W. Seabloom, J.B. Shurin and 

J.E. Smith. 2007. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in fresh water, marine and terrestrial 

ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142. 

Guildford, S.J., and R.E. Hecky. 2000. Total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and nutrient limitation in lakes and oceans: Is there a 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2158
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

common relationship? Limnol. Oceanogr. 45: 1213-1223. 

Schindler, D.W. 1974. Eutrophication and recovery in experimental lakes: Implications for lake management. Science 184: 897­

899. 

Smith, V.H. 2006. Responses of estuarine and coastal marine phytoplankton to nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment. Limnol. 

Oceanogr., 51(1, part 2): 377-384. 

III.A.2.Q.1 - GENERAL INFORMATION QUESTION 1 

Comment ID 0509-1.001.003 

Author Name: Garza, Jr. A. 

Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works 

In conclusion the City of Pensacola, Florida agrees with the EPA's restoration objectives of Florida waterways; however 

it is requested that EPA take into account the water quality research the State of Florida has compiled as it relates to 

establishing the true relationship between nutrient enrichment and biological health of Florida surface waters. Also, 

consideration is given to a phased implementation of EPA' s water quality standards over a ten year period so as to 

allow implementable technologies to be developed. 

Comment ID 0540.001.001 

Author Name: Jackson J. 

Organization: Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association 

The assignment of a fixed numeric concentration for nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll A in the waters of a state 

enriched by all three ignores the variabilty of Florida's surface waters. Trying to meet arbitrary numbers in a dynamic 

everchanging natural system will waste valuable time, effort and resources. This artificial number system will divert 

funds being spent on real time efforts to install best management practices which realistically improve the state's water 

quality. One example was the survey of 20 of Florida's most productive fishing lakes. Under the proposed EPA criteria 

80% of them would be classified as impaired, and yet they are thriving biologically diverse and robust bodies of water. 

At a time when our state's economy is already reeling under the recession, this unfunded mandate to meet these flawed 

numeric levels that are mathematically modeled instead of being site specific will place undue burdens on local 

governments and businesses struggling to survive as it is. We need realistic, attainable goals based on site specific 

conditions that react to the real inputs from all sources natural and manmade and not a artificial number forced on one 

state out of 50 not yet in full mathematic compliance with the Clean Water Act. 

Comment ID 0545.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2159
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Additionally we need standards set for different types of bodies of water since we have many different water bodies 

from large freshwater lakes to blackwater streams, clear springs, estuaries, bays, lagoons, manmade canals and more. 

Comment ID 0567.001.006 

Author Name: McAvoy G. 

Organization: University of Florida 

Florida's waters are highly variable in terms of chemistry and nutrient loading and a one size fits all numeric criteria 

would be extremely onerous and possibly economically and technically impossible for growers to meet in many 

instances. In a number of cases even well water pumped from the ground from deep wells for irrigation would fail to 

meet proposed standards. 

Comment ID 0579.001.002 

Author Name: Meinhardt N. 

Organization: 

Nancy Meinhardt 

Attended by engineers, water management people, Farmers, Citrus growers coalitions, sugar cane coalition, & a couple 

environmentalists groups. 

Main threads:Fed EPA trying to go too fast to establish broad standard for waterways based on unproven scientific 

data(kind of like climate change). They said one of the methods(Sparrow method) did not take into account our different 

soils ,etc. 

Comment ID 0579.001.005 

Author Name: Meinhardt N. 

Organization: 

FL has done 20 years worth of scientific study, very intricate, they should use their data and expertise. Some soils 

already have high content of phosphorous to begin with. One of the environmentalists brought up an incident when one 

person died from falling in a lake. I remember this happening a number of summers ago when it was brutally hot ,water 

still & stagnant. Weak... 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2160
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0586.001.005 

Author Name: Walden M. 

Organization: Alliance of Delray Residential Associations, Inc. 

The Alliance of Delray also strongly recommends that that the EPA immediately establishes a "source control" program 

to limit the amount and type of fertilizer utilized throughout our communities. An educational program that focuses on 

reducing nutrients at the source could help to quickly reduce the load of nutrients affecting water quality. Once a source 

control program is implemented, testing can be continued for the EPA to set appropriate water quality criteria in 

conjunction with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection based on scientific data relevant to our local 

environment. The 70 communities of the Alliance of Delray will settle for nothing less. 

Comment ID 0589.001.018 

Author Name: Foy J. 

Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 

3. It is agreed that water quality is important and needs to be addressed. The Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection has cited many appropriate effects that need to be addressed/corrected. EPA has also cited many reasons 

for the need to establish NNC. As the citations of effects and the need to help our water bodies have better water 

quality to fulfill their ecological and/or human functions are fairly well addressed they will not be repeated herein. It is 

however believed, that even though the needs and effects are somewhat known, the cause effect relationships are 

badly lacking. 

Establishing NNC based on needs and effects without the causation relationships established results in criteria and 

subsequent regulations that are costly, ineffective, arbitrary, and capricious. 

Comment ID 0589.001.023 

Author Name: Foy J. 

Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 

8. Surface Water Management Systems include Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are designed to meet State 

law. BMPs are required to meet existing regulators criteria. Requiring the treatment system to meet criteria before the 

treatment would be akin to saying wastewater must be drinkable as it flows out of houses. This item should not need to 

be expounded upon further as its' consequences are self evident. 

Comment ID 0589.001.031 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2161
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Foy J. 

Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 

2. Not only is South Florida significantly different than the rest of Florida, South East Florida is significantly different 

from the rest of South Florida, and Palm Beach County is significantly different from the rest of South East Florida. It is 

inappropriate to establish one set of criteria for all of South Florida. The undersigned believes establishing numeric 

nutrient criteria (NNC) for all of South Florida is not well based scientifically nor based on law. It is therefore believed to 

be arbitrary. It further is believed to be motivated by the desire to establish NNC on a forced timeline. This I believe is 

capricious. 

Comment ID 0610.001.001 

Author Name: Giraud J. 

Organization: HeSaKe Environments, Inc. 

Wouldn't it be odd if it turned out that they had found out that the three basic groups of microorganisms that created the
 

"black-soils" of the Amazon came from the human environments that built them namely yeast, lactic acid bacteria and
 

phototrophic bacteria from the rivers in Brazil - that is what you have in EM•1® and EM Technology® has knowledge
 

necessary for using all our biomass including Bio-char which would allow us to really start to rescue Earth.
 

It has been a long time coming but I know we have our ducks in a row if only we can get the word out, to enough
 

involved community members, that there is a solution to the putrefaction of our waters and that the sooner we start
 

facing the fact that there only needs to be one solution if it can stand the test of time. We don't have to invent more
 

super-microbe to speed up decomposition of fibered carbon compound in biofuel research - EM Technology® does it
 

with common basic microorganisms found by Dr. Higa back in 1982
 

EM•1® is a liquid bacterial product made of three groups of bacteria: Yeast, Photosythetic Bacteria, and Lactic Acid
 

Bacteria. EM•1® works together with beneficial microbes in the area to which it is added, creating a synergy among
 

microorganisms and larger forms of life including insects and worms, pets and livestock, and people. All products using
 

EM Technology® contain EM•1® in some part of their manufacturing process: EM•1®, PRO EM•1®, Dr. Don's®, EM®
 

Ceramics, EM•1® Bokashi, etc.
 

Since its introduction in 1982, a variety of applications have been developed in over 100 countries. We have put
 

together a video that runs through some of the most common applications with EM•1® to give you an introduction to the
 

world of microbes. Contact me for more information.
 

I was wanting to contact all the manure collecting firms located in the Orlando - Kissimmee Valley area, I would
 

appreciate any help that I officially can get in this endeavor as I could show them that:
 

a/ I could nearly completely get rid of any stench in the areas in 24hrs. With minimal application rates.
 

b/ Speedup the fermentation rate to cycles of 4 weeks and at longest 8 weeks, with EM•1® concentrations of 1:8000.
 

c/ When used in agricultural spraying to inoculate farms and encourage beneficial microbes we use a 1:40
 

concentration of AEM to water.
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2162
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

d/ Supply food for plants with EM•1® Plant Food Extract made from their waste. e/ Once having completed (a/) the 

waste can be drained, dried and turned into Bio-Char by pyrolisis, refer to 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8993313723654914866# to understand the combination of 

When infusing lakes and estuaries one should adhere to 1:10.000 as best as possible and are achieved for the aquatic 

environment, where EM•1® is also used in fisheries and shrimp farms removing the need for antibiotics and hormones 

in fish food and producing healthier fish. I had a biologist that works for the Everglades tell me this was impossible but 

when asked to at least do a test he would not bother himself, what a friend of the Everglades. Everyone seems resolute 

that there is no solution. The secret is to start at the source, for Lake Okeechobee that would be at least Orlando and 

Kissimmee Valley 

EM•1®, in helping to clean the water of its solubles, enriches water's vibration where it can really naturally clean what it 

touches, but I digress. 

EM•1® remeadiates a lot of chemical and oil spills whereby Bokashi in socks absorbs the spill and breaks it down in 

comparative times, 4-6 wks. for oils. 

EM•5® can be used as a pestilent inoculant depending on what herbs were fermented with AEM•1®. EM•1® and 

Bokashi can be used in septic systems and in sewers and I have requested the FDOH certification of EM•1® in Florida 

as we have supplied the required paperwork, already proven in Washington State and by the EPA. I need this approval 

ASAP before the new laws come into effect on the 1st July 2010. 

To give The Keys residents a fair chance in all the confusion concerning septic tanks and the transfer to sewer system. 

There, I am postulating that AEM•1 should in fact be administered in the septic tanks now and later at the beginning of 

the sewer system where fermentation should start. This would again cut the influent-effluent cycle time and sludge 

mass by 40-50%. Initial AEM•1 concentrations 1:10,000 of wastewater then lowered as efficiency improves. 

The closer to the source we can start influencing the environment through the use of EM Technology® the sooner we 

will see an improvement in the lakes, rivers and estuaries 

In conclusion EM Technology® allows us to use our biomass, bio-char more efficiently, get comparative or better 

harvests when compared to fertilizers, does not encourage phosphate and nitrate runoffs and can be used in 

conjunction with fertilizers and insecticides, if farmers so wish. 

EM•1® is completely natural OMRI approved 

For further information please go to www.emamerica.com and my website www. hesakeenvironments.com 

Attached is a .pdf file on "Nitrogen Fixation" 

Comment ID 0623.001.010 

Author Name: Null M. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2163
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: City of Green Cove Springs 

And whereas the EPAs recommended nutrient criteria are not the result of an established -- (inaudible) -- for identifying 

the cause/effect relationship for subject waters through monitored scientific analysis. 

Comment ID 0633.001.002 

Author Name: Gornicki P. 

Organization: Florida Forestry Association 

Another concern of ours is related with the bioassessments in determining surface water impairments or in the case of 

this EPA approach or lack thereof. Florida DEP was two-tier assessment approach, with the first tier being met numeric 

nutrient criteria, and a follow up second tier that was a biological assessment of the water body to provide a biological 

confirmation that nutrient concentrations above the numeric standards actually resulted in biological impairment of the 

water body. We believe it is vital that the biological assessment play a role in determining which water bodies are 

actually functionally impaired. 

Comment ID 0644.001.010 

Author Name: Janazzo J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Commissioners 

We recommend that the EPA rescind this determination, go back to square one. If you can't do that, then we 

recommend a higher percentile, at the 90th percentile; require biological validation before declaring impairment, as a 

minimum; and support site-specific criteria development. Thank you, again, and I know you'll find a better way ahead for 

Florida. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0653.001.002 

Author Name: Blancher II E. 

Organization: Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration LLC on behalf of CF Industries 

I'm here on behalf of CF Industries, which has asked that I review the scientific merits of EPA's proposed numeric 

nutrient criteria for Florida. I have done so and found it to be fundamentally flawed. No one denies that there are 

eutrophication problems within all states, but EPA has erroneously determined that the State of Florida's efforts at 

curbing problems from nutrients has been insufficient to protect applicable designated uses. In fact, substantial 

progress has been made by -- and the action by EPA proposes by promulgating nutrient numeric criteria and 

downstream protective values based on flawed science will delay the State's ongoing actions by diverting valuable 

economic and manpower resources towards nonexistent nutrient problems in many systems where it exists today. The 

State of Florida has developed a sophisticated regulatory process that surpasses all states in terms of nutrient 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2164
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

monitoring and controls and also developed robust scientifically based measures to ensure the State's biological 

resources remain healthy. In fact, Florida's methods have been hailed by the National Academy of Sciences and held 

up as a model to other states and regulatory agencies. EPA fails to consider the high productivity and high turnover 

rates of nutrients in many of Florida's tropical physiographic settings, and the uniqueness of Florida water resources is 

underscored by its intrinsic variability, including systems adapted to natural high levels of nutrients. 

Comment ID 0663.001.003 

Author Name: Richardson D. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

Secondly is that you ensure any new numeric nutrient standards are scientifically based, water-body specific standards 

that account for the parameters that drive the biological response indicators. 

Comment ID 0700.001.002 

Author Name: Wright J. 

Organization: 

I've lived in Florida for 47 years. I've lived in four different regions of Florida. Each one of those regions has a different 

weather pattern, each one of those regions has a different soil type and each one of those regions has different water 

resources. So be smart about this. Don't be ideological. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0712.001.002 

Author Name: Karlson D. 

Organization: 

I believe I have a 30-year proven solution to the phosphorous uptake from the South-Central Florida's wetlands, which 

would be positive for the environment as well as their beef industry. 

If you look at the first photo, you will see that in cooperation with the soil conservation personnel at the Highlands 

County Ag Center of the Florida Extension Service, we designed a ranch that would be ideally suited for the 

environment of the area, being intrinsically on a creek with its wetlands as well as a high ground. 

On the high ground, in cooperation with the ag center, we placed Argentine Bahia grass. We cleaned some of the 

scrub. We left oak trees and palmettos and everything we could for the environment. It's actually an ecological paradise, 

if you were to see this ranch. Take a look at some of the pictures. 

On the wetlands, I attended a seminar, a grass seminar, if there is such a thing, in Okeechobee one day, on a frigid 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2165
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

February day like today. And I noticed they were demonstrating a grass called limpo grass or -- it's called flora alta, 

actually. It's also called hemarthria. As you can see in the picture, these grasses grow as high as the hood of a truck. 

They have high filtration qualities. They're very high -- this grass is very high in total ingestible nutrients. And we planted 

this on all of the wetland areas, and the cattle -- we raise quality bulls, but our cows just thrived on this grass. They 

preferred it probably four to one over the Bahia grass. Being very high in total ingestible nutrients, it only had to be 

fertilized once a year, and we never fertilize during the times of water flow. 

Our soil tests were taken periodically, as was required, and we went along with the best management practices and 

actually received an award for this. But it was found that our soil was low in phosphorous, low in phosphorous. The 

gentleman that came up to investigate and set up a plan, which two years ago we also cooperated with the Department 

of Natural Resources and followed a plan of putting water troughs in, and I did this, I was retired at this time, put an 

underground pipeline to 1150-gallon water troughs and ran fresh water from our own house a mile away for our cattle to 

drink and put fencing across to stop the cattle from going into the stream, of which we eat the fish out of that stream, but 

we fenced our cows out. And this way we feel like we did everything possible to maintain the best management 

practices. 

When Ona Research did a study in the Agronomy Journal, Volume 101 in 2009, did a study on the nutritional uptake on 

these grasses after a three-year evaluation period for three warm-season grass species commonly utilized in pastures 

in South-Central Florida, all grasses showed a positive phosphate removal response to nitrogen application. 

I suggest that this has been successful, this hemarthria grass has been very successful with us for over 30 years, 

actually going on 34 years, and I think this planting of this type of grass, this high-filtration grass, would certainly be one 

of the most positive environmental situations that could be presented to the beef industry and to the entire SouthCentral Florida area. This has been proven for over 30 years. 

I think that we all realize that the countries of Argentina and Australia would rejoice if they thought we were going to 

reduce our beef exports. This is one of the few positive -- our agricultural beef and other exports of this nature, it's one 

of the few positive things that we have left in our entire global economic export armament. 

MR. KARLSON: I was just finally going to say we all appreciate, and you, Denise, might appreciate that, lipstick, 

leather, detergents, shaving cream, shoes, luggage, Vitamin B12, insulin and iron supplements, besides just beef being 

one of the highest sources of protein, is an important heritage to us to maintain. 

Comment ID 0717.001.009 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Manatee County Natural Resources Department 

We support the recognition that geographically Florida water streams and lakes are exposed to natural variation in 

geology, soil and hydraulic conditions that require at a minimum regional criteria. Manatee County is located within the 

established Bone Valley region, which has phosphorous-rich soils. EPA has stated that it would expect from a general 

ecological standpoint that associated uses under these naturally-occurring nutrient-rich conditions would be supported. 

Therefore, docking standards would require reductions to streams, lakes and other foreign water bodies in our county 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2166
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

would be truly unnecessary, counterproductive and economically devastating. 

Comment ID 0723.001.005 

Author Name: Payne J.
 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida
 

The one-size-fits-all standard does not take into account variations in soils, in geology and naturally-occurring deposits 

of phosphates. Just on our ranch, there are a lot of different conditions. One size doesn't fit all, even on our ranch, let 

alone on the whole peninsula of Florida. 

Comment ID 0743.001.007 

Author Name: Rossman D. 

Organization: DCR Services 

The numeric nutrient requirements must reflect a true relationship between the nutrient enrichment and the biological 

health of the bodies of water. 

Comment ID 0744.001.004 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

In that regard, I wanted to suggest that the agency consider if you felt that you needed to adopt criteria today, you might 

consider backstopping existing nutrient levels in unimpaired streams and then setting to backstop criteria that could be 

set based on site-specific conditions. 

So, in other words, if you wanted to set statewide numbers, you could actually backstop existing streams at their current 

loads, their current concentrations if they're currently unimpaired. Just a suggestion. 

Comment ID 0745.001.002 

Author Name: Frey C. 

Organization: City of St. Petersburg 

The City of St. Petersburg has a 100 percent reclaimed wastewater system. We've had that since the 1970s. We have a 

zero discharge, surface water discharge. We have a stormwater utility fund that our residents pay into and we commit 

those funds to a very robust stormwater management program. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2167
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

You know, there are data out there that suggests that there are impairments around the City of St. Petersburg. We also 

-- experts also tell us that even if we cleaned up the nitrogen and phosphorous to levels that are suggested, dissolved 

oxygen won't be improved because dissolved oxygen is more temperature dependent versus nutrient dependent or 

more affected by the nutrients. So even by cleaning up the standards, we still won't effect -- we won't be having 

compliance totally on something like dissolved oxygen. 

Comment ID 0749.001.002 

Author Name: Gornto R. 

Organization: Highlands County 

We're looking at different ways to try to continue to do those kind of issues, but, at the same time, we have got to have 

something that's a scientifically based and a means that we can get to. If it doesn't make sense from a science 

standpoint, it doesn't make sense to put them in practice. It just means it's going to cost somebody some money that 

can't be proven. 

I always believe, like my father always told me, it's one thing if you can prove it to me that it's going to work. And without 

the science and stuff to back it, there is no proof. Then why should I not take a shotgun out there and just shoot in a 

particular area, which I feel is what we've done with these particular numbers. 

Using a broad-base Band-Aid across a wide bleeding artery is not the answer. The answer is to address those issues 

one at a time in each of those types of areas. Because there's some lakes that have a higher nutrient balance normally, 

naturally, we can't set a standard that is going to be the same for Okeechobee it's going to be for some of the others. 

It's just not possible if you set a single water standard. 

Now, I realize that we have some different areas, but there's a lot of lakes in those areas and all of them have a 

different value. If we don't address them from a standpoint of what those particular values are and what the needs in 

that particular area is, then you've got to look at what's in those lakes. There's a lot of those lakes, if we go to some of 

those nutrient standards we're looking at, can't survive. Have we not just done what we tried to prevent? 

If we don't do that from a background of knowing what it is and taking the records we've done, because we know what 

some of those standards are on those lakes. It's a matter of being able to take and utilize that information. And I have a 

hard time believing that you from Washington can take and know what that's going to be. I think that's why we have 

those departments and stuff here, is to make sure that happens. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0750.001.002 

Author Name: Handley J. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2168
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

I happen to have experience all over the state. I've lived in several different areas. You can't apply one rule that's going 

to fit all the different soil types and the basins throughout the state. 

Comment ID 0752.001.005 

Author Name: Bystrak L. 

Organization: Oklawaha Valley Audubon Society 

Also make it mandatory to post signs on waterways impaired due to fecal colaform and also require follow-up testing for 

E. Coli and make it mandatory to try and locate the source. This issues needs to be addressed now in this phase of 

your nutrient criteria. Thank you for time and consideration. 

Comment ID 0752.001.006 

Author Name: Bystrak L. 

Organization: Oklawaha Valley Audubon Society 

Our organization has been a member of the Upper Oklawaha TMDL working group since 2005. But we did not sign on 

to that group's V-pack because it did not address sewage issues in our basin. We noticed that EPA is still not 

addressing the sewage issues in these new criteria. Only the nitrogen component of sewage is addressed, not the fecal 

colaform or even the E. Coli that can be found as part of the fecal colaform. We have concerns about the fecal colaform 

because according to the DEP's own newsletter, which I have given you, on Page 4, you will see that fecal colaform is 

responsible for 35 percent of our impaired waterways in group one and that's 1,767 waterways just in group one. How 

much of that bacteria is E. Coli? We don't know. Because no government agency will take ownership of the fecal 

colaform issue and the E. Coli that can be contained in that fecal colaform, in that fecal colaform test. Health 

departments only look at swimming beaches and sewage spills on land. They do not look at sewage on water. And 

many of our lakes have no beaches, therefore, there's never any fecal colaform testing done. In Lake County, where I 

live, Haynes Creek behind my house is a perfect example of what happens when a freshwater body is impaired 

because of fecal colaform. First, after a minimum two years of water monitoring, the data showed fecal colaform levels 

of 400 in a hundred milliliters of water in more than 10 percent of our samples and a single-day of reading over 800. 

Therefore, it was declared impaired. Please see the attachment that you have about our rules for impairment. However, 

even though it was declared impaired with fecal colaform, no signs were ever posted for that waterway to warn the 

public. No mandatory testing to monitor for the E. Coli was even required. In fact, no attempt to find the source was 

required. Fortunately, we were able to find grant money to pay for most of the 13-week monitoring program, done by 

trained volunteers, some of which were done by members of our local Audubon Club in a Lake County sheriff boat. 

Samples were taken weekly and taken to a Lake County licensed water quality lab. They were analyzed and at least 

four hot spots were identified in Haynes Creek. Unfortunately, only one of these hot spots was ever cleaned up due to 

budget cuts and lack of personnel. So Haynes Creek, nine miles long and as wide as a river, and you have an 

attachment there showing you, remains impaired due to both nutrients and fecal colaform. Even though we found fecal 

colaform readings as high as 2,200 and E. Coli readings of 391, -- 200 is all that is needed to close a beach -- today 

there are still no warning signs on Haynes Creek. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2169
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0755.001.002 

Author Name: Gillespie P. 

Organization: Congressman Bill Posey 

The State of Florida has been a national leader in making our waters cleaner. Florida has in place today some of the 

most robust standard to support water quality improvement. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations fail to recognize 

this and instead impose a blanket approach to water quality that fails to recognize the variability of Florida's water 

resources and the positive steps Florida has already taken. 

Comment ID 0756.001.002 

Author Name: Childs E. 

Organization: Archaea Solutions, Inc. 

Archaea are generally considered the oldest organisms on earth. The name is a derivative of the term "archaic." The 

first fossils are about three and a half billion years old. They were here by themselves for about a billion years. I think 

science more and more is beginning to feel archaea bio-remediated the earth originally and made it more bio-friendly. 

They're very stable. They don't mutate very easily. Their enzymes are adequately specific. They're used for DNA 

fingerprinting. They actually represent about 35 percent of the biomass on earth so they're not an over-here-in-thecorner set of organisms. And I think more and more we're realizing they're key in the nitrogen and carbon cycles. 

Recent publications suggest they're 3,000 fold more ammonia-oxidized genes from archaea in soil than from all of the 

organisms combined. Nitrate-modifying genes are also there. 

In nature more bacteria are associated with archaea actually side-by-side than anyone once thought. The difficulty is 

archaea divide every 36 hours to 11 days, according to current literature, and I'm certain that range will expand as we 

go forward with more people working on it. 

But when you get into situations where there's a higher waste load, the bacteria take off and just leave the archaea 

behind. So in its simplest form what we try to do is fill that gap and get the amount of archaea to bacteria back to how it 

is in nature. And it's really kind of amazing what good things happen. Archaea are safe. We check them according to 

U.S. EPA protocols in an independent lab for acute and chronic reproductive and developmental toxicology. NIH has 

sponsored about five years of research trying to find pathogenic archaea without doing so. All reason and all likelihood 

is they're just so genetically far from pathogens who are evolving towards their host, not towards ancient bacteria. 

We have been at this for ten years and we have made a living helping people who have real problems with nitrogen, 

with phosphorus, with excess carbon, with excess sludge and who can't afford always the steel and concrete that's 

needed to take other solutions. So we tend to work with those who don't quite have the money but still need the 

solution. And we regard those as the more vulnerable people in situations like this. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2170
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

We have good science that's peer reviewed. John will be happy to share those things with you. Ten years of experience 

in North America, Europe and Africa, over 200 customers. And in 2006, we won the BP Helios award for the most 

outstanding green project in the world, which was elimination of sludge from terephtlalic acid production which is highly 

toxic. 

Basically what we do with archaea is increase the health of microbes in wastewater systems and then increase the rate 

and extent of waste background -- or breakdown. 

Archaea actually bind with individual bacteria. As the bacteria accumulate waste from breaking down large molecules, 

instead of those waste poisoning the bacteria, they transfer them into the archaea which takes it on down to waters, 

CO2, or methane, nitrogen gas, actually, if ammonia has been there. When we begin working with archaea, often the 

first noticeable effect is elimination of off odors and then a cleaner effluent from a lagoon or a wastewater treatment 

plant. That lagoon can be municipal or industrial, or actually, agricultural. 

As far as nitrogen is concerned in municipal plants and lagoons, you routinely get ammonia to one part per million, and 

nitrate is at that same place. 

We've taken a lot of plants in the northeast to under two parts per million, total nitrogen. This occurs also in the winter. 

In industry, probably our most spectacular case for a munitions manufacturer, ammonia nitrate, we released his -­

release from two tons a day of ammonia and nitrate to less than 20 pounds. For the last year, he's been at about a 

pound. 

Good job on CAFO farms. With phosphorus in municipalities, in industry and on farms, we usually do a 95- to 99­

percent reduction. In addition, in recent work with the City of Phoenix, Carollo Engineering in Black Beach, for some 

reason, the archaea drive or reduction coliforms and fecal coliforms of two long cycles, and that's very well 

substantiated. We would appreciate the opportunity where appropriate to prove our value both scientifically and 

economically. We know that being innovated is one thing, but if you can save your customer money, you have a chance 

to be accepted. 

We're willing to work our way through any system. We are a science company first and foremost and look forward to an 

opportunity to be of help. I thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0764.001.002 

Author Name: Santella E. 

Organization: TruGreen 

While the industry does support the idea of taking aggressive action, as many of our speakers have said, this is a 

controllable expense for businesses. 

Phosphorous really is not an issue in our industry. We've pretty much removed it. It's a controllable expense, and why 

have it in there if you don't need it. Our Best Management Practices state that unless a salt test indicate a need, don't 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2171
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

apply phosphorous. However, over the last several years, we've seen many local governments placing highly restrictive 

fertilizer ordinances -- I hesitate to call it water quality ordinances because they don't address everything in the Best 

Management Practices. As other speakers has talked, it's not just about fertilizer. And somehow some local 

governments seem to have the mistaken notion that banning fertilizer, restricting it during the growing season is a way 

to protect water quality. The science does not support that; the science from our land-grant universities, the science 

from everywhere from Florida throughout the United States. 

The situation really got so bad with local governments passing non science-based ordinances that the state legislation 

stepped in. Last year it passed a legislation outlining a science-based model ordinance that localities with impaired 

bodies are required to pass. 

Even with this guidance, local governments are coming up with ordinances that are based on restricting fertilizer use 

and really not delving into the entire Best Management Practices. 

This really can be a lost-lost proposition, not only since many of these ordinances -- well, actually all of them have had 

not a single enforcement activity. So really you're going by people's integrity to follow these, you're at a competitive 

disadvantage. But there are some thoughts in the university community that these can have unintended consequences 

and actually lessen water quality. 

So I'm asking that the EPA really look hard at what DEP, what the State's been doing, the land-grant universities and I 

thank you for your for time. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2172
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0767.001.003 

Author Name: Hurley M. 

Organization: NAIOP Central Florida 

Our organization is still under the process of evaluating the proposed regulations and we will likely add additional prior 

input prior to the close of comment period. However, for the purposes -- for the purposes of being at this public hearing, 

NAIOP is offering the following objections: First, the EPA's regulations ignore the diversity of Florida's water bodies in 

geographic areas. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection determined that the proposed criteria do not 

reflect a true relationship between the nutrient enrichments and biological health of Florida surface waters. 

The EPA is proposing standards derived from statistical modeling from a small select group of water bodies. Imposing 

these arbitrary numeric nutrient criteria will very likely result in otherwise healthy water bodies being designated as 

impaired. 

Comment ID 0769.001.004 

Author Name: Mahan R. 

Organization: Orange-Co, Inc. 

I'm concerned that there are many waterways that would be declared as impaired, but, yet, I think that we're trying to do 

such a broad brush with these numerical standards that, you know, when you show the map up there, the five regions 

of the state, the state is very different even within some of the areas that I've work and live in in Southwest Florida. 

I think setting a numerical standard for a water body within DeSota County at the same level that you might set that 

standard, say, in Charlotte County, could be detrimental because -- only because I think that the water bodies are very 

different. 

I think if we're going to set numerical standards, we need to take the time to use the correct science to make sure that 

we do that on an individual basis so that those numerical standards will be meaningful. 

Comment ID 0776.001.003 

Author Name: Click D. 

Organization: StormTech 

So I want to just tell you a little bit about underground systems, is my company prescribes a treatment train aspect 

which basically looks at -- when you think of nitrates, you not only look at what you can't see but it's what you can see. 

There's a lot of organic matter that can be collected in catch basins and removed, and maintenance is a big part of that. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2173
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

We have a system called an Isolator Row that actually traps TSS and phosphorus. And we've had studies, third-party 

peer reviewed studies from the University of New Hampshire as well as Tennessee Tech that have shown any removal 

rates from 94 to 97 percent of TSS but 50 percent of phosphorus. We don't prescribe to trap any nitrates. That needs to 

be done by different mechanisms. 

But in this treatment train process, there is no reason we couldn't develop a treatment train that might have sand filters 

on the outlet side that would provide removal of nitrates at much lower flow rates on the outlet side. So there's a lot of 

things that can be done underground. 

And I think one of the problems is it doesn't get recognized for all of the advances and research that has been done in 

the industry way beyond my company. There's tons of companies that are doing it. I spent a lot of time with the Scottish 

EPA and overseas, and believe it or not, they're behind us in many ways but they are catching up. 

So I think that when you have this discussion, you need to realize that the developers, private developers want to do the 

right thing. They don't want to get fined. So they will do what is prescribed as long as it makes sense and helps the 

environment. They're not always the bad guys. 

So I'd like to kind of summarize by saying that what I propose is sub-surface systems to be looked at as a technology 

that can be part of the solution, but also establish standards for removal rates for systems so we can hit those 

standards and with third-party peer review research. And, ultimately, you need a maintenance schedule. 

Comment ID 0778.001.001 

Author Name: Collins J. 

Organization: 

I'm John Collins. I'm a private citizen. As an engineer, I'm very happy the EPA is proposing some numeric limits for 

nutrients but have some concerns that echo what many of the previous speakers said. 

I think there are already too many ineffective rules already in place. We've got water management districts, DEP, EPA, 

counties and cities. And there's an uneven and unfair and inconsistent enforcement. 

I don't believe that the present enforcement process works very well. And merely enacting new rules without going back 

and fixing the enforcement process is not going to give you the results you desire. 

I think what we need is -- in two months, tax date, April 15th, comes along. Why does it work? The taxes, the threat of 

an audit, the TCMP, Taxpayer Compliance Monitoring Program. I think the EPA needs to work with some of the 

compliance agencies in Florida to institute a PCMP, a Permit Compliance Monitoring Program, because I know 

personally and a lot of people who bring up antidotal evidence, that people sign permits and never intend to abide by all 

the terms and conditions. 

There is no threat of an audit. What you should do - and it's profiling - but profiling is one of the most effective ways to 

take science resources like government compliance and make it work. Anybody who has multiple permits for 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2174
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

government agencies, on a periodic basis unannounced, you audit them, and if his permits have problems - just like the 

IRS goes back years - you audit multiple permits. You'll see compliance go up very much. 

Comment ID 0787.001.003 

Author Name: Hitchcock J. 

Organization: United Waterfowlers of Florida 

What do we want to do about it? As far as TMDLs go, we need TMDLs. We need to have a measure for what to do. 

What we don't want the TMDLs to do is to impede restoration. And that's mostly what we're concerned with is active 

management and restoration of wetlands in Florida. 

What we'd really like to have you do is have the NRCS set up their national headquarters in Florida and start making all 

of our impounded areas into WRPs and bring all their money with them. 

There's a wonderful restoration project still ongoing, the Apopka Impoundments on Lake Apopka where they did set the 

TMDL for that lake at 50 parts per billion for phosphorates to manage that project. And NRCS pulled up stakes recently 

and took all their money with them. They can still use that money. And we can use that money all over this state, you 

know, rather than giving it to bankers that maybe don't deserve it. 

But I think that pretty much wraps up what I was going to say. I thank you again for coming. 

Comment ID 0793.001.003 

Author Name: March R. 

Organization: Collier Enterprises and Orange-Co, Inc. 

An additional concern is that all of the information that we have indicates that water quality nutrient concentrations vary 

significantly with several variables, especially rainfall, soils, topography and vegetation. Water quality standards that do 

not adequately take these variables into account will not provide the flexibility necessary to design cost effective water 

quality improvement facilities. We need a regulatory process that takes these variables into full account, and one that is 

practical and predictable. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0795.001.004 

Author Name: McCarthy L. 

Organization: Lykes Brothers 

The methods used to develop the proposed numeric nutrient criteria haven't used a biological confirmation that the 

nutrient values that are higher than those proposed, the water bodies that have those higher nutrient values actually 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2175
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

have biological impairment. Many of the lakes and streams currently meet or exceed their designated use criteria. 

They're fishable, swimmable, have a lot of healthy -- but yet will be classified as impaired based solely on the 

concentration of one or more nutrients. 

There's quite a few high estimates on the number of those water bodies that will be affected. I have no idea which is the 

right number, but there seems to be quite a bit. It's not really clear what good it will do to implement a program, a very 

costly program to fix those when there's not necessarily any environmental benefits associated with the fix. 

Comment ID 0814.001.003 

Author Name: Foy J. 

Organization: City of Atlantis, the Town of Haverhill 

Second or number three on my letter would be establishing appropriate criteria is important. We need this. I don't think 

there's a debate. I just don't think that the cause/effect relationship has been established. 

Comment ID 0817.001.006 

Author Name: Martin D. 

Organization: Sierra Club 

The other issue is we can do a lot at point source. People don't have to use so much fertilizer on their lawns. One of the 

biggest problems is that St. Augustine grass and Bahia grass, sod requires a huge amount of chemicals. If we change 

how people garden, a lot of these water districts could improve their water quality, so we need to look at point source. 

We need to look at ways to reduce the amount of water coming off our farms so that the fertilizer is not getting into the 

streams and the canals. And the other thing we need to focus on is to continue to work with the farmers to improve the 

BMPs to make them so that they reduce the amount of nutrients coming off the land so that we can improve our 

environment. We need to stop the panic and work cooperatively. Thank you. 

Comment ID 0819.001.001 

Author Name: Clarchick M. 

Organization: 

Hello. My name is Mike Clarchick. I'm here representing myself. I am not an authority on nitrogen, nor am I an authority 

on phosphorous. I'm a lead AP, and I know a teeny, tiny bit about low impact development which unfortunately hasn't 

been mentioned very much here today. I do know that if we reduce our runoff, we'll reduce our pollutant control, and 

those of you who know about low impact development will know that that is the case. I also know that we're talking 

about storm water here today, and storm water seems to be a four-letter word. It's the largest four-letter word that I 

know, and we look at storm water as a hindrance. In reality it's a resource. My comments today are in regard to urban 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2176
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

areas of storm water runoff. On the average, there are 60 inches of rain water that drops in Florida a year. Water 

management district discharges about 60 percent of the water that they capture directly to the ocean. This method does 

not only carry pollutants, but it does not allow for the natural recharge of our aquifers. Low impact development best 

management practices must be implemented in urban areas to allow for a more natural treatment of rain water. Point 

source controls will reduce pollutants by reducing volumes. These same controls can filter out pollutants prior to 

discharge. Government projects should lead the way by incorporating pervious pavements, green roots, bio retention 

and cisterns, just to name a few. Low impact development techniques have been used in many areas successfully, not 

just in the United States, but in many countries throughout the world. Indeed, cost has been a major comment here, and 

anybody who's done research on the U.S. EPA site would know that low impact development sites are actually less 

costly than conventional methods, saving money to builders in both their capital cost, as well as their life cycle cost. We, 

the stewards of the state of Florida must take action to save our most important resource. Every individual branch of 

government should have a low impact development office. Those that argue against low impact development has 

simply not invested the time to do the research and to follow the facts. This technology is there and has been proven 

successful by many cities throughout the United States such as Philadelphia, PA, Portland, Oregon, Seattle, 

Washington, Washington, DC, Fairfax, Virginia, just to name a few. These cities have implemented these techniques, 

and they've done so successfully, in some cases reducing volume of storm water by 98 percent. Once again, if we 

reduce the storm water runoff, we've reduced the pollutants, the nitrogen. These cities have approached their storm 

water runoff with a can do attitude. This is the approach that needs to be taken in Florida. We need to think outside the 

box. Instead of modifying our existing systems that don't work, we need to create new systems that do work. It must be 

mandated by a law which is achievable, and goals that can be maintained and measured. Those who have stood at this 

podium before me, the design community, the building community, the industrial community, the government bodies, to 

all of those who say that this is an impossible task, I ask you this. Does your institution have a rain garden. Are you 

using a rain barrel or a cistern. Is your roof a green roof. Are your roadways, parking lots, patios and courtyards 

pervious. Are you really doing everything that you can do. Thank you for your time. 

Comment ID 0820.001.002 

Author Name: Kolojeski J. 

Organization: Archaea Solutions, Inc. 

Well, a little over ten years ago Archaea Solutions was formed by a group of scientists, and we remain to this day a very 

scientific-oriented company. We found through use experimentation, both field, laboratory, et cetera, that archaea could 

produce a drastic reduction in water in BOD, COD, and more specific for these hearings, ammonia, nitrogen and 

phosphorous. Incidentally but nonetheless significantly, it also eliminates disease-bearing organisms like chloroform 

and e coli which can be not only of great public health interest, but to those farming with large animals. We found this 

through a great deal of trial and error, and today we use a proprietary of archaea organisms and other selected 

microbes using indigenous organisms. We use this blend. We've been able to develop a sophisticated process that is of 

course proprietary, and we are able to adapt to all environmental conditions, pH, temperature, salinity, you name it, we 

have worked them successfully by adjusting and manipulating our combinations. Basically I'd like to focus on three 

things in the last minute I have. It works, it is safe or I would not be here, and it's highly cost effective. We have clients 

here in the state of Florida, as I mentioned, those three areas, municipal waste water treatment. In municipal waste 

water treatment we are able to reduce nitrogen levels to less than a part per million. We've been able to do the same in 

both food processing and on large agricultural farms. In the area with respect to phosphorous, we have demonstrated 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2177
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

anywhere from a 95 to 99 percent reduction in phosphorous in all three of those areas. In agricultural operations, we're 

sophisticated enough to even preserve enough of the two so that additional fertilizer is not required for sorghum fields, 

et cetera. We're here to help. We're here to help Florida no matter what these numeric standards ends up being. As I 

mentioned, we've been tested by all U.S. EPA standards on safety, and we've been used in an environment such as 

Hawaii where you have to be safe, in small countries in Europe where we're considered the cutting edge of technology. 

To demonstrate our sophistication, in 2006 we were awarded the Helios Award by a very sophisticated company. That's 

their highest award on an international basis. I just want to conclude by saying the following. We would appreciate the 

opportunity to prove our value, both scientifically and economically, in any of the venues of Florida. We cannot help 

those with huge capital budgets of multi-million dollars who can afford additional steel and concrete, and we do not 

compete with that. Unfortunately for us, we tend to be called in when no one else can do the job and 90 percent of the 

budget has already been spent. Even in those situations, we have had remarkable success. So we're here to help the 

state of Florida in any fashion we can. We've given all our materials over to state DEP so they're familiar with us, and 

I'm going to give federal EPA one additional document, even though we gave them some last night outlining some of 

the detailed information. Thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0822.001.004 

Author Name: Hutchcraft M. 

Organization: King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus 

We're also concerned that these standards are arbitrary and are too generalized. You've established standards that are 

a blanket approach to a very complicated natural system, and we believe that will result in diverting very limited 

resources to waters that don't need additional treatment and attention from waters that do need additional treatment 

and assessment. 

Comment ID 0825.001.010 

Author Name: Wilson-Davis L. 

Organization: City of Boca Raton 

The relationship between nutrients and stream biology requires site specific nutrient standards rather than unscientific 

and arbitrary regional values. Every TMDL has been approved by the EPA. 

Comment ID 0826.001.003 

Author Name: Welch C. 

Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual 

At the end of the day, we think it is very important that the EPA slows down this process, takes a look at National 

Academy of Sciences and have a third party review have a longer look at the economic impact to the states and the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2178
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

industries that will be affected. The site specific rules I think can't be overstated here. The types of soil, the types of 

water bodies, the way our land across the state and just across our citrus regions, I mean, we are only based in 32 

citrus-producing countries. There are 67 in the state. We are divided in four areas based on soil types alone on that 

score. It will be devastating if a one size fits all approach is placed on us at this time. So anyhow, I encourage you to 

look at those outside sources on economic activity and impact, and also on the National Academy of Sciences, and we 

thank you very much. 

Comment ID 0827.001.002 

Author Name: Grigsby W. 

Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association 

I would propose that we look at a little different approach here, and the land owners are struggling to keep their places 

together, and I think they would be very much in favor of a public/private cooperative to try and use their lands to farm 

water or farm storage or what we want to call it in order to clean it up or hold it over a period of time, maybe for reuse 

before it's gone. Along these rivers where we've seen some of these pictures, the land owners along there, the ranchers 

I know, I have talked with the district and others about some of that. They would be tickled to death if there were some 

kind of a cost share program to put the structures in place that they would need to do that. So those are things that I 

live, they would certainly like to be. The FRES program, I don't know if you're familiar with FRES. Unfortunately I don't 

know what the acronym is, but it is a/public private corporation with eight ranchers down in South Florida, World Wildlife 

fund is involved with it, and it's doing very well. They have private negotiation on who's going to pay for it. It's a pilot 

project, and it seems to be working well. I would certainly encourage more of those type of activities. 

Comment ID 0828.001.005 

Author Name: Zee B. 

Organization: Delray Alliance 

The Alliance of Delray also strongly recommends that the EPA immediately establishes a source control program to 

limit the amount and type of fertilizer utilized throughout our communities and an educational program that focuses on 

reducing nutrients at the source could help to quickly reduce the load of nutrients affecting water quality. Once a source 

control program is implemented, testing can be continued for the EPA to set appropriate water quality criteria in 

conjunction with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection based on scientific data relative to our local 

environment. The 70 communities of the Alliance of Delray will settle for nothing else. And I have a copy of this for each 

one of you, and if you have any questions I'd be glad to answer them now. 

Comment ID 0831.001.001 

Author Name: Ritter F. 

Organization: Nature's Own Solutions 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2179
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Hello. How are you doing. I don't know where to start. I've heard so much stuff and I'm not going to try to reiterate a lot 

of the other points, but there's actually only one person who actually touched on what I'm trying to touch on. My name if 

Frederick Ritter, and I'm founder of a company called Nature's Own Solutions. We provide alternatives to all the toxic 

chemicals that are used in fertilizing, weed control, wood preservation and chemical pesticides. One of the things -- as 

you know, that's one of the greatest threats to our water quality here in the state is unregulated use in many different 

industries, whether it be agriculture, golf courses, municipalities. I sit on several subcommittees for the West Palm 

Beach Green Task Force trying to get these kind of things. A lot of people only talk about saving water and conserving 

energy and recycling, and they don't look at the ground floor, if you will, of being green, and I think a lot of the concerns 

that have been voiced here today could be handled if we are able to educate people that there are alternatives to all the 

chemicals that they're using now. Products I promote have been tested by the EPA, the USDA, the FDA. The pesticide, 

the chemical we use for insect control is on your 25B list of minimum risk pesticides, so the stuff has been tested for 

years and years, but we can't outspend the chemical companies. It takes people like me going out to places like this, 

task force, county school board commission meets just to get the word out. This stuff does work. It has worked for years 

and years. There are golf courses around the country that are completely green that don't use any toxic chemicals, and 

they're up north. I know they can work here. I have people that are doing and working with it. One of the things I've 

come across, it seems that Florida discourages green products by placing registration surety bonds just to be able to 

market a product that has no toxic chemicals. Even a seaweed product I can't get into the state without paying 

thousands of dollars in surety bonds and registrations, and the companies that I deal with tell me the same thing. They 

can't get in there, and they even said to me that they think Florida is almost working against itself in that respect, but 

they don't have it on other products, green cleaning products. They don't have the same, you know, requirements. So 

one of the ways you could help us to urge states to relax these type of restrictions for green and organic products. The 

levels allowed should be low enough, and I guess they are low enough from what everybody's saying. But to force 

industries, homeowners to look at other alternatives, nobody wants to put anybody out of business, but unless they 

know it's out there, they're not going to be able to access it and to try it. I mean, I have cancelled True Green, 

Chemlawn, Nozzle Nolan. My dog no longer gets spot drop meds. We have products for all this stuff, and they work. I 

wouldn't be here today after a year of knocking my head against walls trying to get people to listen to this. Like I said, 

everyone has spoken that many of the costs, like I said, will be alleviated if the people who use these products will 

embrace organic alternatives which have been tested by many and shown to be viable alternatives from Texas A&M, 

Iowa State, Rutgers University, Auburn University. I currently have the University of Florida nematologist looking into 

using these products to try for nematode, white fly. One product to take care of all these insects, not 15 different 

products. I was hoping these standards were tough enough, and from the comments I see that they are. I hope this will 

initiate the investigation of the organic alternatives because this is an alternative that has not even been considered as 

a viable means to the protection of our water. I'm a native Floridian. I've seen in my time being a fisherman, a hunter 

and a diver what these chemicals have done, you know, over the 48 years I've been here in this state. As I said, 

protection of our water, and it seems would answer most of the concerns voiced here today if it was implemented in 

some of these best management practices. I've talked to several people, and they say well, I've got to go. But 

everywhere I turn, I get people looking at me like I'm talking about science fiction. Insects don't build up resistance to 

natural products. Every two years there's another product come down the pike to take care of something that something 

else took care of because the insects developed a resistance. Nature doesn't have that thing happening. I hope that you 

will look into these type of alternatives to either spur the states to embrace them, give incentives for people to try them 

because all they do is divert money from what they're currently buying to buying something different. You don't have to 

redo water treatment plants, you won't have to investigate all of these other alternatives to clean the water because 

from the source points it will be much cleaner going in. Thank you for your time. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2180
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0833.001.003 

Author Name: Louda B. 

Organization: 

What I'd like to see is Loxahatchee Groves had a problem with phosphates due to horse manure being brought over 

from Wellington. Wellington put in some best management practices to get rid of their phosphorous, okay, so we ended 

up with some of the problem. But what can be done is -- there's a lot of phosphorous. They instituted a best 

management practice that said you can't use a fertilizer in Wellington that zero is not the middle number, phosphorous, 

okay. It's nitrogen, phosphorous, potash. I'd like to see Florida implement the same law. It's illegal, with a fine, to use a 

fertilizer with anything above zero on it in the middle for any lands, lawns, agriculture -- not agriculture -- landscaping 

that's using city water or reclaimed water. You don't need to add any phosphorous. It's already in the water. How much 

would that save in the canal system of Lake Worth Drainage District or our own.If you get to remediation for 

phosphorous laden sediments, don't let people use aluminum. Aluminum hydroxide clogs fish gills. One other nutrient 

that should be added to regulatio is sulfur. I've got a grant from the Department of the Interior. I've got a fellow working 

on gathering all of the data on mercury methyl mercury that's ever been collected for the Everglades. I had to buy a one 

terra byte external hard drive to hold this stuff. Sulfur is driving -- somebody mentioned archaea before it's the archaea 

bacteria down there that's sulfate reducing. So there's a lot of things that can be done. I think the biggest one right now 

is get the citizens involved. The homeowner is really a bad actor when it comes to pollution. Thank you for your time. 

Comment ID 0839.001.004 

Author Name: Musgrove M. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation 

I do have and will submit some comments regarding soils and phosphorous loading of soils and the application of 

fertilizer not increasing crop yields. The effort has to go to controlling Ph levels to release phosphorous that is already in 

the soil. We have seen that in studies on Lake Okeechobee into the Lake Okeechobee basins. Thank you so much. 

Comment ID 0855.001.002 

Author Name: White S. 

Organization: 

MS. WHITE: You are welcome. I forgot. Anyway, what I was trying to say here was 

that I think a lot of this problem could be averted because there are a lot of organic ways of doing things out there no 

one is talking about. Why are we putting all this poison in the ground when it isn't necessary? I have paperwork at home 

on my desk from a man who has a company who sells natural ways of fertilizing and doing things. I don't understand 

this. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2181
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0860.001.007 

Author Name: del Real P. 

Organization: Aurora's Voice 

And the other question is regarding heavy metals and other pollutants. Why are those not part of the standards; 

mercury, benzine, xylene, all sorts of hydrocarbons? Why are the standards not addressing other pollutants and just 

addressing phosphorus and nitrogen? Thank you. 

Comment ID 0863.001.003 

Author Name: Howard B. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District 

With regard to water quality, our data suggests one limit per nitrogen and one per phosphorus may be overly simplistic 

given what we see throughout our watershed, even within the freshwater region. Therefore, when establishing your 

criteria we hope that you will consider this variation in nitrogen and phosphorus throughout the watershed and select 

numbers that are appropriate. 

Comment ID 0864.001.003 

Author Name: Poulson T. 

Organization: Friends of Loxahatchee Natural Wildlife Refuge 

Department of Environmental Protection says things like these criteria are not scientifically valid, they are too simplistic. 

One size does not fit all. Chlorophyll A in the water column doesn't work everywhere. They are right. In the Everglades, 

periphyton is the issue. The EPA does have different areas. They read about areas where there is high phosphorus. 

They say that some of the things are more stringent than necessary. As far as what's flowing into Lake Okeechobee, 

they aren't. Lake Okeechobee's concentrations are going up. They continue to go up. The load is going up. Legacy 

phosphorus is going up. And of course that affects the downstream areas in the Everglades protection area. 

Comment ID 0864.001.005 

Author Name: Poulson T. 

Organization: Friends of Loxahatchee Natural Wildlife Refuge 

And I agree with everybody that we have to look at this as a regional basis. By looking at your maps, you already have 

done that. So total maximum daily loads which are used, have not been working. We know that in spite of the fact that a 

lot of farmers in the EEA are doing a great job. It is not enough to do the trick, and they are rightly annoyed that people 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2182
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

in the upper basin do not have to do similar things. Let's see. So the narrative things that Florida has I think are 

complimentary, not different, than numeric ones because, you know, we are talking biological integrity, I use pyramid or 

imbalance, are slippery, but at least they tell you something that you have to do when you consider a regional basis. 

Comment ID 0873.001.002 

Author Name: Salmon V. 

Organization: Summit Private School 

But we would like to see the standard cover more than just the nitrogen and phosphorus. What we've studied is that 

downstream from a lot of these farms and from all different types of runoff you see a lot of intersex animals, changes in 

reproductive behavior. We would like to see reproductive behavior as an end point, not own only end points such as 

cancer or death, but actually reproductive behavior, fish that don't defend their eggs, things that aren't inclined to 

reproduce. That's the types of things that you see where there is runoff and mixtures. Obviously, we look at chemicals. 

But looking at things individually doesn't tell the whole story. There is a lot of things that either interact with each or 

additives. In particular, I look at endocrinology, so I am looking at the hormone disruptors, which mainly have non 

monotonic dose curves. And when you're looking at the clean water standards and things that were put together in the 

'70s, you're looking at a toxicology system that is mainly based on monotonic temperatures. So people are saying well, 

there's not enough evidence of this, there's not enough evidence of that, but you are not testing the chemicals within the 

realm that they need to be tested. You can't look at something on a range like this when we know that the dose curves 

are such that even very low doses of things, like BPA or DDT at certain times of exposure, are so critical. And students 

find that extremely easy to understand. It seems like the older I talk to people, the more difficult sometimes it is to look 

at because they're used to a certain type of thinking about toxicology where the dose makes the poison or whether the 

dilution is the solution to pollution. So those are the three things; looking in at mixtures, non monotonic dose curves and 

behavioral end points of those things. 

Comment ID 0876.001.001 

Author Name: Girard J. 

Organization: HeSaKe Environments, Inc. 

Thank you, everyone. I come with a solution with all these problems with the water, with the algae. I don't have a 

prepared speech. So what I'm trying to say is -- MR. GIRARD: Jean Girard. I represent Hesake Environments. Hesake 

is actually an Indian word for living. Back in 2000 I found a product that was called effective microorganisms and it was 

by -- discovered or fell upon by Dr. Higa in Japan. The farm that my parents had in Australia started using it. And he got 

rid of all the fertilizers, phosphates and nutrients and started using effective microorganisms to breakdown compost in 

six weeks where he could turn it into the ground again and it was good. Since 2005 I have been -- I formed a company. 

I have been trying to get people to notice it, but it's like I am hitting a wall. I want to get to the source of where the 

phosphates are coming from. This is mainly in the Kissimmee area because of the cattle and such things. The nitrates 

are in the farming also. What happens with effective microorganisms is it quells the phosphates. I tried to get a biologist 

that is working on the Everglades to look at it and he's steadfastly said you can't do that with phosphate. I am saying 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2183
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

just try. Just do the experiments. This product is approved by the EPA. So that we do need to get more data on this. 

Concerning the wastes on the wastewater that goes flowing out, this product reduces the sludge about 50 percent so 

that, you know, there's a reduction already that doesn't cost money. This product is a lot cheaper than others. You can 

use it for farming where it's equivalent, if not better than fertilizer. You can use it with fertilizer if you want to transition. 

You can use it with your pesticides if you want to transition. We do have a way of composting different plants to create 

environments where the pests don't want to come, don't want to come. There's a lot of points that effective 

microorganisms -- it's very useful. All it is, is completely safe for humans. It's yeast lactate facilica and phototrophic 

bacteria. And that combination works in synergy to quell the phosphates, to quell the nitrates, to create nodules in the 

plants that is absorbing the nitrates and ends up making the plant more productive than with fertilizer. On sugarcane 

you get a five percent reduction compared to fertilizers. And it's a lot cheaper and it's safe. So that's what I have been 

trying to do all this five years, trying to get noticed. And I appreciate you having this meeting so that I can talk about it 

because it is a lot cheaper and we are not talking billions of dollars, we just need to change our concepts. That's all I 

need. 

Comment ID 0877.001.001 

Author Name: Girard J. 

Organization: HeSaKe Environments, Inc. 

I just forgot to mention that I have been trying to get the -- in the Florida Keys, building this sewer system, and 

converting people from the septic systems to the sewers. And in the wastewater management system they don't care 

about which microorganisms they are using, and I am coming in and saying try this. Because what happens then is 

effective microorganisms encourages beneficial microorganisms. One of the things where in South -- at the south part 

of Florida where there is that dead water, I believe it is because all the oxygen is being taken out because of the 

different bacteria. If we were to -- they are going to be pumping that waste into the aquifers. And what I am trying to get 

them to understand is if they treat it from the beginning of where the sewer is coming in, it has that time to mature and 

to reduce the amount of time that they have to hold it so that it can take more capacity. And because it's beneficial 

microorganisms, this product is used in fisheries where the hormones and the antibiotics do not need to be used. And 

the fish grow bigger. So it's a matter of getting the word out and offering a solution, and that's what I am trying to offer 

here. 

Comment ID 0883.001.004 

Author Name: Lynch T. 

Organization: Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. 

WHEREAS, the current proposal treats all waters throughout the State of Florida the same even though South East 

Florida is significantly different from the rest of South Florida and Palm Beach County is significantly different from the 

rest of South East Florida; 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2184
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0885.001.002 

Author Name: Bateman H. 

Organization: Bright Hour Ranch 

Bright Hour Ranch has historically been a steward of the land through its Best Management Practices (BMP) program. 

We are concerned that the standards being required by EPA to meet the Numeric Nutrient Standards are based upon 

unknown scientific evidence and consequently the unknown costs or enforcement procedures. 

Some of Florida's lakes, streams and springs are naturally high in phosphorus because these waters interact directly 

with phosphorus-rich bedrock and groundwater. It is important to distinguish a water body that is naturally high in 

nutrients from those that have become "impaired" due to excessive inputs from nutrients . 

Comment ID 0888.001.004 

Author Name: McKenna M. 

Organization: McKenna Brothers 

Numeric Nutrient Standards must be site specific or healthy water bodies will be deemed "impaired" and we would be 

personally financially accountable to make the waters meet nutrient concentrations they would not naturally met due to 

their natural diversity. 

Comment ID 0895.001.006 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Myth: There is a defensible scientific basis for these new proposed regulations. 

Fact: The new regulations - which could become enforceable by the federal Environmental Protection Agency as early 

as October 2010 - have not come from new legislation nor be based on sound, peer-reviewed science. Instead, these 

restrictions are the result of a lawsuit filed by the group EarthJustice and subject to litigation by the State of Florida, the 

EPA and other Florida-based groups . With respect to the scientific validity of EPA's proposed nutrient criteria, EPA 

admits that its nutrient standards are not based on biological responses to nutrients: "EPA analyzed stressor-response 

relationships in Florida streams based on available data, but . . .did not find sufficient scientific support for their use in 

the derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida streams. More specifically, EPA was not able to demonstrate a 

sufficiently strong correlation between the biological response indicators . . .and TN or TP concentrations ."[2] 

In other words, EPA could not come up with a numerical expression of Florida's existing narrative nutrient standard 

(which expressly prohibits nutrient loadings that cause imbalances of flora or fauna), so EPA established regional 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2185
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

criteria pursuant to a simplistic, averaging method and then overlaid a convoluted "protection of downstream uses" 

model to further reduce the criteria for streams flowing into lakes or estuaries. Thus, unlike Florida's existing narrative 

standard, EPA's proposed criteria bear no demonstrated relationship to the nutrient levels that cause impairment in 

Florida waters . 

[2] (Proposed Rule, p. 80). 

Comment ID 0896-2.001.009 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners 

• It should go without saying that any target concentrations / criteria must be based on reliable, site-specific data and 

established science. 

Comment ID 0898-1.001.006 

Author Name: Jones D. 

Organization: Putnam County Chamber of Commerce 

WHEREAS, Florida's watershed based process of establishing numeric nutrient criteria is far superior to EPA's 

generalized and fundamentally flawed approach, which does not take into account the unique characteristics of 

Florida's many thousands of rivers, streams and estuaries; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed standards are so extreme that EPA would judge many of Florida's pristine streams and lakes, 

even some unaltered by human hands, as impaired; and 

Comment ID 0899.001.004 

Author Name: Bartz R. 

Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce 

• Areas such as Manatee County should not be treated with a 'one size fits all approach" when on December 29, 2009 

the water quality was ranked 38th best amongst the 100 largest water utilities in the country (from 2004-2008) by the 

Environmental Working Group - second best in FIorida to the city of St. Petersburg. 

Comment ID 0908.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2186
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Lamb K. 

Organization: Summerfield Crossings Golf Club 

The proposed Water Quality Standards are an example of bad science and a one-size-fits all mentality that DOESN'T fit 

all. As a professional steward of the environment it is insulting that these standards take no consideration of local 

conditions and only serve to stifle already struggling budgets and businesses. I don't take any action that will effect the 

environment on my Golf Course unless it benefits the environment. This proposal will do much harm and little good to 

improve water quality standards. It will appease some environmental groups who have no stake in actually using good 

science and common sense to improve the quality of life for Florida and it's residents. Those in charge of writing these 

"Standards" need to come visit those of us in the real world who are stewards and professionals in their fields and 

understand what types of rules are needed and whom these rules need to be directed at. The average homeowner is 

the one that needs attention. They are not professionals and are the ones who overwater, over fertilize, over apply 

chemicals. They do not receive continuing education, licensing and professional organization research to make sound 

decisions to protect the environment. 

Please use sound science, sound decision making and the consultation of professionals in the field to implement such 

drastic rule modification. 

Comment ID 0909.001.002 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

2. Allowance for mixing zone wording in the state proposal needs clarification ""discharge of"? effluent or waterbody? 

3.Good that wetland contribution of natural high N values is recognised. Also good that the Criteria for Estuarine 

situations is put off for a year to evaluate science as the change in the limiting nutrient from fresh to salt water situations 

(N to P)will complcate your calculations and models. 

4.I question your use of linear regression lines over logrithmic bassed graphs! 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.002 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Overall Finding on Proposed Nutrient Standards 

The technical foundation of the US EPA's nutrient criteria development is invalid; the application of the proposed 

nutrient criteria can be expected to result in unjustified waste of money in controlling nutrients that are not responsible 

for excessive fertilization of receiving waters. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2187
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The basis for the US EPA's nutrient criteria is what is well-recognized to be an unreliable statistical approach that can 

be founded in spurious correlations. It is not based on a technically sound quantitative cause-and-effect relationship 

between nutrient concentrations and planktonic algal chlorophyll or other aquatic plant biomasses, which is paramount 

if there is to be any expectation, much less a quantitative expectation, that reducing the "cause" will reduce the "effect." 

The Florida nutrient criteria are based on statistical analysis of TP and TN lake P and N concentration data. The nutrient 

criteria should be based on water quality impact of phosphorus and/or nitrogen on the waterbodies nutrient related 

water quality such as planktonic algal chlorophyll, chlorophyll impacted water clarity as measured by Secchi depth, and 

or the area extent and density of macrophytes etc. While for many waterbodies there is a correlation between 

phosphorus concentration in a waterbody and the water quality impacts of phosphorus there are waterbodies where this 

relationship is not valid. 

Those fundamental defects are compounded by the inclusion of total nitrogen as a parameter presumed to be 

controlling the amount of planktonic algal biomass in a subject waterbody. Including total nitrogen in the constituents 

that must be controlled for all waterbodies when the focus is eutrophication-related water quality will for many 

waterbodies result in the expenditure of large amounts of money for nitrogen control in runoff and discharges with little 

or no impact on a lake's planktonic algal chlorophyll beyond that which could be achieved by controlling available 

phosphorus loads to the waterbody. 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.031 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Over the past four decades that Dr. G. Fred Lee has been active in examining nutrient load - response relationships, he 

has repeated observed the unreliability of statistical correlations developed between nutrient concentrations and 

assumed responses. It has been his experience that the current "Empirical Approach" being used by the US EPA can 

readily lead to unreliable approaches for developing nutrient criteria for the management of excessive fertilization of 

waterbodies. It is not a matter of the approaches' yielding overly protective, or under-protective regulation and 

management. The problem is that they are not technically sound; a technically unsound approach cannot be expected 

to render reliable criteria/standards, or conclusions regarding the necessity for or water quality impacts of nutrient loads 

or management steps that could be required to achieve arbitrary criteria/standards. 

There are many other "statistical approach" relationships reported in the literature that are not valid for relating nutrient 

loads/concentrations to fertilization response. Statistical "relationships" can be developed that have little or no capability 

to reliably predict changes in nutrient-related water quality characteristics that would result from changes in nutrient 

loads. Such a demonstration is of paramount importance for the development of nutrient criteria developed for the 

purpose of controlling nutrient-related water quality. Any statistical relationship between nutrient load and waterbody 

response must be solidly grounded in fundamental mechanisms (cause-effect) that influence how a nutrient could 

impact a fertilization response. Without such a foundation, the statistical relationship is simply game playing. 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.042 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2188
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Mechanically focusing on planktonic algal chlorophyll could lead to large expenditures for nutrient control while failing to 

address the real most significant water quality problems of concern to the impairment of the beneficial uses of the 

waterbody. In short, it is exceedingly short-sighted to develop "nutrient criteria" that consider only one aspect of the 

water quality problems/beneficial use impacts that are caused by excessive inputs of nutrients. 

Comment ID 0933.001.003 

Author Name: Collins J. 

Organization: 

3. Intake for any site should ALWAYS be required to be a specified distance downstream of site discharge. That way 

the operation has to deal with its own discharges. There will be a great incentive to clean up the water since any 

pollutants it contains will be inputted into that plant's operations. 

Comment ID 0934.001.001 

Author Name: Louda J. 

Organization: 

Hard and Fast numerical criteria for phosphorous. Sort of pie-in-the-sky legislation. A one-sizefits- all will not work and 

has no scientific basis. 

If one REALLY considers phosphorous (P) in the "HISTORIC" or "PRISTINE" Everglades, then he/she will realize that 

the 10 ppb value thrown out in a cavalier fashion fits only the center portions. That is, "historically" the "pristine" Glades 

were surrounded by nature's filtering marshes. This would include uplands, grasslands and the Pond Apple forest at the 

southern end of Lake Okeechobee. 

As an environmentalist do I want much lower P going to the ‘Glades? Of course. But this must be accomplished with 

science and modified to fit individual situations. Also, it needs to be REALISTIC. 

Comment ID 0934.001.002 

Author Name: Louda J. 

Organization: 

Rather than just complain, each of us should forward suggestions. Thus, here is mine: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2189
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

One thing that the EPA, FDEP, SFWMD and all agencies could do is lobby the Florida State Legislature to pass a law 

forbidding the use of any fertilizer with the middle number (P2O5) over 2. Actually, zero would be better! Fertilizers are 

in weight-% for N:P:K. 

Comment ID 0934.001.006 

Author Name: Louda J. 

Organization: 

The use of chlorophyll-a values (my research in fact) and P levels can be misleading as well. That is, I have seen many 

cases where P is high but Chlorophyll is low. Why? Light limitation in deep dark (humic substances) or sediment laden 

(Lake Okeechobee) waters. Thus, how to adjust a regulatory numerical standard matrix to fit all cases? Good luck! 

Comment ID 0942.001.003 

Author Name: Reed K. 

Organization: 

ON LOWERING ALLOWABLE NUTRIENT LEVELS IN GROUND WATER 

Current legal nitrogen levels in ground water are gauged to prevent blue baby disease. Since the purpose of the rule is 

to protect human health, and since we now know that human health depends on a healthy environment, I suggest that 

the allowed level be adjusted downward to 1. Prevent blue baby disease, 2. Prevent brown blood disease in fish (the 

piscean version of blue baby syndrome), and 3. Protect the most-sensitive, negatively-impacted organism(s) that would 

naturally occur (including visiting organisms) in that particular watershed, with the stated objective being "to restore 

environmental health". Bioassays are absolutely necessary for proving that the system's needs are being met. 

Comment ID 0942.001.004 

Author Name: Reed K. 

Organization: 

IRON POLLUTION 

Since the current focus is on reducing nitrogen pollution to Florida's waters, and since it is known that iron is a limiting 

nutrient for Trichodesmium[2,3], an aquatic, nitrogen-fixing cyanobacterium that is also implicated as a nitrogen source 

for Karenia brevis, "Florida's Red Tide Organism", I strongly urge that iron be considered a water pollutant and efforts 

be taken to stop all iron pollution from municipal water systems, sprinkler systems, run-off water and sewage treatment 

effluent. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2190
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

[2] Rueter, John G.; "IRON STIMULATION OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND NITROGEN FIXATION IN ANABAENA 7120 

AND TRICHODESMIUM (CYANOPHYCEAE)"; 9 February 1988; Journal of Phycology: An International Journal of 

Algal Research; Volume 24 Issue 2, Pages 249 - 254; retrieved from 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120797556/abstract CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 

[3] Vitousek, Peter M. and Howarth, Robert W.; "Nitrogen limitation on land and in the sea: How can it occur?"; 18 

February 1991; Biogeochemistry, Volume 13, Number 2; p. 18-115; retrieved from 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x682267850ngl634/ 

Comment ID 0942.001.005 

Author Name: Reed K. 

Organization: 

ENFORCEMENT ISSUES 

NEED FOR A NUTRIENT BUDGET 

The Fact Sheet for this session states "To date, Florida has invested significant resources in its statewide nutrient 

control efforts", but these efforts were not successful, and I believe the reason they are not successful is because, 

rather than trying to "control" pollution, we should have been managing pollution with a nutrient budget that tracks 

nutrients through the system and recycles nutrients back into our terrestrial food web or our bioenergy web. A lot of 

people either don't want to think about it, or they seem to believe that, when they flush their toilets or send their garbage 

off in the garbage truck, that the people/systems on the other end have methods to somehow (magically?) make what 

they can't recycle go away. If our pollution problems are to be solved, we all have to come to the realization and 

understanding that 

NUTRIENTS IN = NUTRIENTS OUT 

and that the nutrients we don't recycle back into the terrestrial food or bioenergy web don't magically disappear-they will 

be used by something else-possibly to our detriment. Since not everyone who wants to help with this problem is a 

Scientist, with a nutrient budget in hand, I believe non-scientists and bureaucrats can more-easily and realistically 

assess and manage the impact(s) of various changes to the system. 

Comment ID 0948.001.001 

Author Name: Poister P. 

Organization: Agrium U.S., Inc. 

The agricultural community is now embracing a proactive approach to balance these competing goals. The 4R nutrient 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2191
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

stewardship framework allows growers to meet there sustainability goals through the adoption of best management 

practices by using the Right Product and Right Rate at the Right Time and Right Place. The framework recognizes that 

what is right for one area may not work in another. Best Management Practices must be customized to address 

ecological and social differences. It is also clear that practices must be implemented in all four areas to be effective. 

While this adds some complexity, it is a scientific reality. By recognizing this within the frame work, we can achieve 

more consistent and real improvements in performance. 

It offers a sustainable solution through a science based and practical approach to nutrient use. The 4R framework 

provides policy makers and researchers with a foundation they can use to sustainably improve performance through the 

development and implementation of best management practices. 

It provides the foundation for environmental goods and services. This allows farmers to receive payments for the 

implementation of best management practices that deliver real environmental benefits, such as reduced green house 

gas emissions. This supports the grower's goals of economic sustainability and reduced environmental impact. 

We believe that the same approach should be adopted in managing nutrient use beyond agriculture. The adoption of 

policies that focus only one area such as rate or time without considering others can have unintended consequences. It 

is important that we recognize the impact of soil and climate, understand new technological advances, and provide local 

experts with the tools needed to customize stewardship plans to each situation. 

Consider a very practical application of 4R stewardship through the use of state-of-the-art nutrient technology, 

specifically controlled-release fertilizers. These products encapsulate nutrients within a polyurethane membrane, and 

prevent rapid release of nutrients. The nutrients feed the root zone slowly, at the proper rate over a long period of time 

which maximizes nutrient-use efficiency and environmental safety. This approach provides the professional turf 

manager, gardener or homeowner the results they want and at the same time provides an environmental benefit with 

limited run-off and reduced air emissions. There are many companies that offer these technologies, and there is no 

commercial agenda that stands to benefit any single manufacturer of these products. 

The 4R stewardship is already paying off for farmers. We can increase yields, strengthen farm operations and protect 

the environment. It is an excellent example for how to better manage nutrient use in other areas. To cite one specific 

example, the NRCS Conservation Stewardship Program has already endorsed controlled release fertilizers as a 

preferred tool for their groundwater protection program and are offering farmers incentives to apply these products 

instead of traditional nitrogen sources. 

On behalf of the fertilizer industry, we would like to offer our help to the EPA as it develops these standards. We believe 

that incorporating the approach outlined above will provide a more comprehensive and long-term strategy to address 

the water quality concerns that prompted this proposed rule and look forward to working with you on this critical issue. 

Comment ID 0977.001.001 

Author Name: Hiers T. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2192
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The EPA's regional nutrient criteria attempts to boilerplate the diverse waters in the state of Florida which appears to be 

a non scientific approach. The criteria should be site specific to avoid deeming healthy water bodies impaired. Florida 

has been a national leader in research and promoting effective BMP's and this new criteria ingnores a large body of 

scientific work over a period of years and will absolutely cause significant harm to our already impaired economy. The 

irony may be if this criteria is implemented then significant harm may be inflicted on our water bodies. Please let the 

science prevail and not pre concieved emotions or hyped up environmental groups. 

Comment ID 0997.001.004 

Author Name: Poulson T. 

Organization: University of Illinois 

II. NARRATIVE STANDARDS ARE SUFFICIENT 

A. NARRATIVE STANDARDS HAVE NOT BEEN SUFFICIENT TO STOP CONTINUAL INCREASES IN NUTRIENT 

EUTROPHICATION. Lake Okeechobee water column P concentrations and legacy sediment loads continue to increase 

and there are still periodic (Etrashings1 of estuaries and nearshore marine waters and reefs with massive and often 

toxic harmful algal blooms (HABs). 

B. There is a long history of using Numerical Indices of Biological Integrity (IBIs) starting with the landmark studies by 

James Karr and his colleagues using fish decades ago. Many states have expanded the use of IBIs to include macroinvertebrates. Ohio1s EPA is a good example to emulate. Here in south Florida I am using plant species identity, 

stature, and relative abundance as cheap and sensitive bio-indicators of nutrient pollution. They complement chemical 

measurements. 

Comment ID 0997.001.006 

Author Name: Poulson T. 

Organization: University of Illinois 

IV. ONE NUMERIC STANDARD DOES NOT FIT ALL TYPES OF WATER BODIES AND LOCATIONS IN FLORIDA. 

A. With five Florida Regions and four kinds of water bodies EPA CLEARLY RECOGNIZES THAT ONE SIZE DOES 

NOT FIT ALL. Again, incremental adaptive management is germane. 

B. Some (Epristine1 waters will be out of compliance. Many of our springs and wetlands are already degraded and WE 

SHOULD AIM TO MAKE ALL WATER QUALITY BETTER. 

C. WE SHOULD NEVER DOWNGRADE USE CATEGORIES. Canals should not have different numeric standards 

because they are used for flood control and irrigation. By FDEP rules OENO WARER BODY CAN BE RECLASSIFIED 

TO A LOWER USE IS THIS WOULD LEAD TO ANY LOSS OF A DOWNSTREAM USE1. A corollary is that we should 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2193
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

not allow (Emixing zones.1 

D. ALL WATER USERS MUST BE REQUIRED TO MAKE WATER LEAVING THEIR LAND / JURISDICTION 

CLEANER THAN THE WATER ENTERING. This is the only way we will begin to solve our myriad nutrient pollution 

problems. 

E. Standards should be different for reused IQ water than for waters entering natural waters from sewage treatment 

plants. I agree. But we must have strong BMP requirements to prevent IQ water from entering natural waters 

F. The bottom line is that NO ENTITY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DISCHARGE WATER MORE POLLUTED THAN 

THE BODY INTO WHICH IT IS DISCHARGED; and if the water is impaired then the concentrations of P and N entering 

must be much less if recovery is to be expected. 

Comment ID 0999.001.001 

Author Name: Brownell D. 

Organization: Providence Baptist Church 

EPA should not implement nutrient criteria limits without demonstrating a cause and effect relationship between the 

nutrients and surface water impairment. There should also be reasonable proof that the very limits themselves do not 

impair surface waters. 

Comment ID 1005.001.003 

Author Name: Heatherington K. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 

2. We do not believe the currently proposed EPA freshwater numeric nutrient criteria and downstream protective values 

(DPVs) are accurate for the natural conditions of the southwest Florida climate, landscape, geomorphology. and 

hydrologic cycle. Therefore we request that the adoption of the proposed freshwater numeric nutrient criteria be delayed 

until the estuarine criteria have been developed so that the downstream protective values (DPVs) for the freshwater 

criteria, as well as the freshwater criteria themselves, can be adjusted to adequately support the estuarine criteria that 

truly protect natural conditions for southwest Florida estuaries. 

3 . If the Proposed freshwater numeric nutrient criteria adoption cannot be delayed, SWFRPC requests that the DPVs 

for Sarasota Bay, Charlotte Harbor, Caloosahatchee, and Estero Bay are listed as "TBD." 

Comment ID 1011.001.002 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2194
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

Palm Beach County is certainly in favor of achieving the goal of better water quality. However, we are very concerned 

about the approach EPA is taking in attempting to develop standards that will be used to determine what water bodies 

need to be cleaned up. The standards proposed by EPA were developed so quickly that one has to wonder how 

applicable they are to many waters within the state. Palm Beach County urges the EPA and the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) to come up with additional water body classifications that will provide a practical way of 

developing standards that fit the water resource. We also urge the EPA to develop standards that not only are 

scientifically based, but based on the use of that water body. EPA should include a narrative criteria for certain uses in 

the new criteria as is currently the standard. 

Comment ID 1011.001.009 

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. 

Organization: Palm Beach County 

6) The use of Chlorophyll-a as a standard for canals and lakes should be eliminated from the proposed rule. 

Chlorophyll-a is an indicator of a potential water quality problem because of the presence of algae, but does not prove 

there is a water quality problem There are ample areas throughout the state that have a high phosphorous and a high 

Chlorophyll-a number, but the water body is considered healthy. The University of Florida/Institute of Food and 

Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) stated in a report on Lake Manatee, Florida that Chlorophyll-a is often used as an 

estimate of algal biomass, with blooms being estimated to occur when Chlorophyll-a concentrations exceed 40 ppb. 

DEP, through a statistical analysis of data, has determined that a Chlorophyll-a concentration limit of 20 ppb is sufficient 

to prevent excess phytoplankton (algal biomass) in streams. 

Comment ID 1027.001.004 

Author Name: McAvoy G. 

Organization: Hendry County Cattlemen's Association and Hendry-Glades Farm Bureau 

Also, our waters are very highly variable. In some instances we find rainwater that we collect that will not meet the 

standards that are being proposed. So the one-size-fits-all standards are going to be very onerous and hurt our 

industries. 

Comment ID 1040.001.003 

Author Name: Hamel R. 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

First, we feel that the approach that we have seen is -- does not recognize Florida's unique and complex water -­

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2195
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

surface water bodies. In reviewing the criteria, we feel they're too broad and too general. We also feel that water quality 

nutrient criteria set by regulatory agencies must be scientifically based and validated by water body and water type, and 

we have added concerns regarding the science and modeling used by EPA, which seems to be different from DEP. So 

we encourage you to work with DEP to look into this. 

Comment ID 1045.001.004 

Author Name: March R. 

Organization: Come Enterprises 

The Florida DEP has been methodically addressing Florida water quality through the TMDL program, and developing 

numeric standards based on water-body-specific biological assessments. This is a time-consuming approach, but it is 

necessary to develop scientifically supportable relationships between nutrient concentrations and biological responses. 

The EPA nutrient criteria are based on a more expedient, but less rigorous reference approach without substantial 

biological validation. This more expedient approach increases the likelihood that the criteria will overreach scientifically 

and lead to the misallocation of resources. The financial resources available to address water quality, or any other 

environmental issue, are finite. 

Comment ID 1050.001.005 

Author Name: Cooper J. 

Organization: 

We must start protecting our vital natural waterways by banning the use of phosphate fertilizers, I believe, within 100 

feet of all natural waterways throughout the state, period. Let's have a zone that we can step back from and say, No 

phosphate here, it's not needed, no fertilizer here, no chemicals here. We can live without it, and our watershed 

certainly can live without it. So I really urge you to take action now on starting these buffer zones within 100 feet 

throughout the state. 

Comment ID 1051.001.004 

Author Name: Everham W. 

Organization: 

Commissioner Judah gave a list of many of the local water bodies that are clearly degraded, and I've got to tell you in 

my time on this landscape, I can't give you one example that I can definitively say of one of our water bodies whose 

water quality has improved. Although if Commissioner Judah was here, I would tell him I'm cautiously optimistic about 

Lake Trafford, with all the money we're spending to suck the muck out of the bottom of that lake. 

I believe that numeric standards can help. I can't imagine that all of the hearings that you have set up for these numeric 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2196
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

standards have been as supportive as this -- most of the comments from the people this evening have been, and I 

imagine that some of the people have raised issues about whether the proposed numeric nutrient standards are 

adequately geographically resolved, and I have to say I agree with those concerns. 

My experience with the aquatic ecosystems in South Florida is that many of them are very unique, and they might not fit 

into larger regional characterizations. And as both Andrew McElwaine and Sarah Larsen mentioned, although we have 

many canals in South Florida, we also have functional freshwater rivers, and I think we don't want to have them 

overloaded by either mischaracterization or inappropriate standards. 

Comment ID 1053.001.004 

Author Name: Hale A. 

Organization: Charlotte Sierra Group 

But I want to say this, that there is a thinking, a mind-think that we are after a one-size-fits-all solution. That is not going 

to work. We must have a list of successful practices that are resilient enough to fit each community. Also recent 

practices, such as reducing the fertilizer use that I mentioned, are very simple ones. But we need to get started, and we 

will use these easily installed examples first, before we start talking about expensive reverse osmosis stuff. 

Comment ID 1056.001.002 

Author Name: Guest D. 

Organization: 

There's a serious problem, and there's no doubt that there's a relationship between those pollutants and those 

problems. And the opponents say that there isn't a relationship and that just doesn't square with the facts at all. We 

think there are improvements possible in you-all's science to get to refined numbers, and we're going to submit written 

comments about that. 

Comment ID 1063.001.008 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Furthermore, despite claims that these criteria are one size fits all, they are anything but. All existing Florida water 

quality standards are divided into just two types of water bodies: fresh and marine. EPA's proposed criteria will not only 

divide into fresh and marine, but the freshwater bodies are further divided into five ecoregions by six subtypes, including 

three separate lakes criteria, rivers, springs, and canals. 

Since water quality standards are used for screening and are therefore not meant to be water body specific, the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2197
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

expensive and time-consuming process of developing the water body specific total maximum daily load pollutant limits 

is only pursued if warranted by a water body failing to meet its water quality standards. Thus, these criteria are 

sufficiently specific to the types of Florida water bodies for their intended purpose. 

Comment ID 1079.001.002 

Author Name: Stubbs J. 

Organization: 

EPA and all of us here have known for almost 12 years and our generalized narrative standard is not adequate and not 

protective of our most vital resource, our water. To me, numeric nutrient standards should be as stringent as they can 

be. There cannot be wiggle room when it comes to the safety and well-being of our citizens or the health of our 

environment. 

We have heard that numeric nutrient criteria can be compared to a speed limit sign on our roadways. This is a very 

important concept because imagine driving home from work and the only law that you have to abide by is just to don't 

go too fast. Well, don't go too fast means very things to very different people. Meanwhile, you have the teenagers 

zooming by you at 80 miles per hour, while my grandma is in the right lane going 20 miles per hour. And so who knows 

better than the State of Florida to know what speed limit to set? 

And this has shown through countless hours of research and data collection that have all been submitted by the state to 

EPA to create these standards. There's no doubt that EPA has worked with the state extensively, and it shows in how 

similar the numbers are from those released last year to those numbers released in January. 

And we can't forget that for good reason nutrients are being treated different from every other pollutant in Florida. The 

proposed numeric nutrient criteria are specific enough to each type of water body that now the proposed standards 

create over a dozen standards for these new -- for these flowing fresh waters and lakes. And you compare that to any 

other parameter like copper, where only two standards exist for fresh water. So these are definitely covering our unique 

water bodies throughout the state. 

Comment ID 1093.001.003 

Author Name: Roberts B. 

Organization: 

If we had -- excuse me, if we had a strict statewide and enforceable fertilizer ordinance to use only slow-release 

fertilizer in -- from September to June, this would avoid much of the nitrogen and phosphorus runoff, which causes so 

much of the pollution in our waterways. And the other thing we need is an area-wide EIS before any more phosphate 

mining is allowed. Thank you. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2198
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1100.001.002 

Author Name: Hartney M. 

Organization: Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association 

While I support many of the same objectives that you have heard discussed earlier today with clean water and a sound 

and safe environment for everyone to enjoy, my purpose in being here today is to express some of our concerns with 

the methodology and with your economic impact statement. 

Suggestions for improving the process. We urge E.P.A. to meet the legal requirement to establish criteria necessary to 

protect designated uses and that are scientifically defensible. 

To do this, your criteria must be based on a biologically-relevant impairment threshold. Criteria must be based on the 

documented cause-and-effect relationship between the nutrient being controlled and the biological response that affects 

the designated use. 

I hope we can all agree that nutrients are essential to a healthy ecosystem. In part of our concerns with your 

methodology, if you don't base it on cause-and-effect relationships, you could be either over or under regulating the 

nutrients in a particular water body if you don't understand how their nutrients affect that water body. 

Thus, criteria must be -- must not -- oh, additionally, criteria must not result in the control of nutrients below natural 

background levels. It makes no sense to have pristine areas being declared impaired. 

Comment ID 1119.001.003 

Author Name: Weeks T. 

Organization: 

D.E.P. has had 12 years to set standards, and it hasn't happened yet. Considering that I live in a neighborhood where it 

took D.E.P. 17 years to get a certain company to clean up the toxic plume of groundwater, I'm not really surprised. 

What -- we've got to do something. What is a narrative criteria? I -- I don't really understand that. I don't understand how 

you can measure water quality, I don't know how you can set goals without some numbers and numerical limit. We've 

got to have it. 

I think it's going to make the T.M.D.L. process a lot more efficient. It's the only way we can streamline the M.P.D.E.S. 

permit process, which is very cumbersome. And most of all, the people really want this. 

Comment ID 1128.001.004 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2199
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Blancher II E.
 

Organization: Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration LLC on behalf of CF Industries
 

We believe many of the concepts proposed in the rule do not fully account for the highly-variable physiography in the 

state -- of the state's regions and water bodies, nor of their designated uses. 

Comment ID 1128.001.006 

Author Name: Blancher II E.
 

Organization: Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration LLC on behalf of CF Industries
 

Previously, I had commented that E.P.A. fails to consider high nutrient productivity and high turnover rate of nutrients in 

Florida's tropical physiographic setting. This is particularly true on systems fed by wetlands and many of the systems in 

the Bone Valley area. 

Recently F.D.E.P. has commented that U.S. E.P.A.'s methods in part will erroneously identify as impaired many 

unimpacted reference systems with high natural levels of nutrients. 

That supposition by E.P.A. that all of these are impaired is a serious failure to recognize some of the most unique 

Florida environments. 

Comment ID 1130.001.002 

Author Name: McCarthy L. 

Organization: 

I made comments at the last round of public hearings and made a lot of technical -- expressed our technical concerns 

for the methods that were used, so I'm not going to repeat them again, but I did want to emphasize a couple of them. 

Especially the use of biological confirmation in the development of the criteria. Those specific numbers actually -- there 

is a cause and effect thought gone behind it when -- when coming up with the numbers. 

Comment ID 1140.001.002 

Author Name: Hilliard D. 

Organization: 

And with all that expertise, we basically apply a very simple litmus to what we see in Florida, and that the Florida's 

narrative description has failed. It has failed consistently across the state. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2200
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1141.001.007 

Author Name: Coe J. 

Organization: 

In 2002, the International Car Wash Association found levels of nitrogen at 3.82. That's far greater than what you're 

proposing for a legal discharge limit. And what about they're flushing straight into the bay? 3.82 total nitrogen? They 

found a total phosphate levels of 9.79 in car wash water in 2002. 

These levels should not be the acceptable. The pollution levels should not be acceptable. In public records, you will find 

investigations of mobile operations in discharging wastewater into ground and stormwater drains. We are in need of 

enforcement of the same requirements of stationary operations as well as mobile operations. Stationary operation of 

businesses should be required to maintain the same pretreatment levels as a P.O.T.W., as somebody stepping into a 

P.O.T.W.; however, all the correspondence state. 

Comment ID 1156.001.003 

Author Name: Carr R. 

Organization: 

Our National Economic downturn has already severely impacted the campground industry and Florida's rural 

communities. This rule should only be implemented after the EPA has demonstrated a cause and affect relationship 

between the nutrients and surface water impairment. These studies should include the effect of treated water as well as 

the impact of septic tank effluent which undergoes no nutrient treatment. 

EPA should not implement nutrient criteria if it has not been proven that the limits themselves will not impair surface 

waters or be protective of designated uses. EPA must also have the White House OMB office conduct a complete 

review of the proposed criteria prior to promulgation. 

Comment ID 1165.001.002 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

It's general systematic and scientific approach, with intent to use a site-specific approach whenever appropriate and 

sufficient data exists to support such an individualized procedure, gives it the necessary flexibility to respond to the 

unique characteristics of Florida's fresh-water systems. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2201
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1176.001.006 

Author Name: Tilton A. 

Organization: Johnson Engineering, Inc. 

And the last thing is, I would encourage consideration of an annual loading to establish the criteria for a water body 

because simply having the concentration doesn't necessarily tell me what the receiving's body is going to get. And if I 

have an annual loading -- there may need to be an extreme upper concentration because there might be some harmful 

aspect, but I don't think that should be the sole measure of meeting or not meeting the criteria. And with that, I thank 

you, gentlemen and court reporter, for listening. 

Comment ID 1198.001.002 

Author Name: Worley K. 

Organization: 

And setting water quality standards based on sound science will give Floridians a much clearer picture of the state of 

our waterways rather than having to base answers on whether or not the nutrient concentration is causing an imbalance 

in the system, which is very subjective. 

Comment ID 1215.001.001 

Author Name: Sawyer W. 

Organization: HydroMentia, Inc. 

I applaud your effort to set numeric standards in Florida. As I mentioned in my presentation at the Jacksonville public 

hearing yesterday algae is the problem, but it can also be part of the solution. Our Algal Turf Scrubber® technology has 

the ability to cost-effectively meet TMDL mandates through the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus loads in both point 

and non-point source applications. Since we use native attached or periphytic algae rather than phytoplankton, we are 

uniquely effective at low nutrient levels in non-point source applications. 

In a large river system like the Mississippi, it is estimated that about 600,000 acres of Algal Turf Scrubbers® will reach 

the EPAs goal of reducing nitrogen by 40%. Algae produced from the treatment systems would produce nearly 2 billion 

gallons of renewable biofuel annually. These estimates need to refined, but they indicate that we may be able to costeffectively meet EPAs TMDL objectives, make it possible for farmers to use fertilizer, and make significant gains toward 

meeting our renewable fuel standards. 

I welcome an opportunity to communicate with you and your staff about the benefits of the Algal Turf Scrubber®. We 

have presented the benefits of our technology to the EPA in Atlanta and Washington in the past, but now that numeric 

standards are a reality it's time to get reacquainted with the benefits and potential of the Algal Turf Scrubber.® 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2202
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Thanks again for taking on this tough challenge. I look forward to hearing from you soon. 

Comment ID 1217-2.001.004 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

I. Overview of Mosaic Positions on the Proposed Rule 

Mosaic supports technically sound policies, programs, and rules to protect Florida's waters from nutrient impairment, 

where that might occur. EPA invited comments on the Rule on many topics, particularly regarding the availability of 

better science and data upon which to base any final Rule. Mosaic offers multiple analyses, methodologies, and data 

sets in these comments to aid EPA in shaping a final rule that is scientifically sounder and that will be more effective in 

safeguarding against those nutrient loadings in Florida's waters that are, in fact, harmful. Our comments also offer 

alternative policy approaches to provide the critical flexibility necessary to tailor protections to real and diverse 

circumstances without compromising environmental protection. 

Mosaic has several fundamental concerns about the scientific and technical foundation of EPA's approach, including: 

the absence of a dose-response relationship between nutrient levels and biological impairment of streams; EPA's 

reliance on questionable statistical methods; EPA's use of a "one-size-fits-all" framework that disregards the diversity of 

water body-specific conditions; and EPA's reliance on overly rigid and cumbersome alternative regulatory mechanisms 

to provide the flexibility the Agency recognizes is necessary for the Rule to work as intended. Like many others, Mosaic 

is concerned that EPA's Rule will lead to discharge restrictions that would impose significant costs on Florida as a 

whole, without regard to whether the costs are necessary or would produce meaningful environmental benefits. 

In the preamble to the Rule and in other communications with stakeholders, EPA has acknowledged the difficulty of 

tailoring a proper rule on nutrient water quality for Florida's vast array of diverse waters; and thus the Agency has 

solicited solutions to the challenge and specific alternatives to EPA's proposals. Mosaic seeks to be as responsive as 

possible to this invitation. The task is not an easy one because, as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

("FDEP") was compelled to conclude after decades of rigorous study and analysis, the complex and highly variable 

matrix of factors that affect water quality in Florida's waters does not lend itself to "quick fixes" or to simple or singular 

numeric criteria for nutrients. In some sense, EPA has set itself and interested stakeholders an impossible task: to 

define with uniformity and precision unharmful "nutrient" levels when no such numbers exist or can rationally be 

defended. 

Mosaic recognizes that EPA nonetheless has concluded that this rulemaking is necessary and should go forward on the 

current schedule. Consequently, Mosaic focuses on how the Rule can be demonstrably improved, rather than why it 

should be abandoned. In so doing, we do not mean to suggest that EPA's approach to protecting truly localized and 

watershed specific water quality and habitat goals can or should be conducted in this broad-brush fashion, either as a 

matter of good environmental policy or as a matter of law. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2203
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1219.001.004 

Author Name: Taylor J. 

Organization: 

In that regard, I would like to make a few following suggestions. Number one, insofar as possible, a water body's natural 

state and variability should be taken into account when establishing target numeric water quality criterion. 

Number two, in many instances, this would provide justification to change a designated use or classification to one 

more in keeping with natural conditions of each water body. 

Comment ID 1219.001.005 

Author Name: Taylor J. 

Organization: 

I agree with Florida Department of Environmental Protection's proposal to provide biological assessment to supplement 

numeric nutrient water quality data. This is very important because aquatic community response is unquestionably the 

best validation of selected numerical nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1219.001.006 

Author Name: Taylor J. 

Organization: 

Number four, first flush and subsequent nutrient -- numerical nutrient concentrations in runoff from stormwater outfalls 

should be used to help establish target nutrient levels in lower reaches of tidal estuaries -- tidal tributaries, excuse me. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2204
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1219.001.008 

Author Name: Taylor J. 

Organization: 

Number six, hopefully, manpower and laboratory facilities used to implement this proposal can also be periodically used 

to sample and analyze the state's waters and aquatic life for toxic metals, biocide residues, industrial pollutants, 

pathogens and parasites, petrochemicals, and pharmacological wastes. 

Comment ID 1221.001.004 

Author Name: Krumreich T. 

Organization: 

Phosphorus and nitrogen come from, amongst other source, fertilization of crops. And according to the E.P.A. handout 

given for this hearing -- well, the fertilization of crops according to the E.P.A. handout given for this hearing. 

So what would you think would be the number one crop being constantly grown in the state of Florida? Well, my guess 

would be the grass on our lawns, because every home in Florida has a lawn which is maintained as a year-round crop. 

So by adopting fertilizer control ordinance, which would dramatically reduce the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen 

being introduced in our waters through runoff from our lawns, the government agencies responsible for paying the costs 

of complying with the new E.P.A. standards would save a significant amount of money. It certainly would be much less 

expensive to adopt fertilizer control ordinance to prevent the chemicals from being introduced in the waterways in the 

first place than the cost of cleaning up the waterways after they have already been contaminated. 

So as stated in the handout given for this hearing, high amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus and surface water result in 

harmful algae blooms, i.e. red tide, dead fish, and reduced mating grounds and nursery habitats for fish. 

So the fertilizer runoff from our lawns is a contributing factor for algae blooms, i.e. red tide, and the economic costs due 

to negative effect of red tide on our tourism trade has been well documented. 

So the obvious consideration of doing the right thing environmentally is important, but there are also good economic 

considerations for the creation of more strict fertilizer control ordinances to reduce the amount of phosphorus and 

nitrogen in our waters here in the state of Florida. 

Florida Consumer Action Network and myself as a member of FCAN and as a member of their staff join Sierra Club and 

other organizations in strongly adopting the urging of the -- the adoption of stronger fertilizer control ordinance in the 

state of Florida in order to comply with the new E.P.A. standards. 

Thank you for your time. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2205
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1229.001.004 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

The use of limited data, generalized nonspecific formulas, and broad criteria may be too simplistic to govern the water 

quality standards for systems with such a high degree of natural diversity and a large variety of site-specific conditions 

that shape the ambient nutrient water quality and the resulting impacts on a wide range of aquatic ecosystems. 

Our concern is that too many lakes, springs, and streams and rivers that support health and well-functioning 

ecosystems are deemed impaired or do not meet the proposed criteria. 

One of the other things that I wanted to discuss is that there is differences between organic nitrogen and inorganic 

nitrogen. Often a stream may have a high total nitrogen because of organic nitrogen that does not really pose a threat 

to the aquatic flora and fauna. Such differences need to be appropriately considered in setting any standard. 

Also, there is a variation in nutrient concentrations based upon the soils over which the rainfalls and the water runs. 

Your proposed criteria do not address this variation caused by soil differences. 

Comment ID 1229.001.006 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

One way to improve water quality is through retention areas. We actually constructed a retention area on our property, 

and did so to try to improve water quality. 

This particular water body, pond that we constructed took about 12 percent of the land that was in that particular 

watershed. If you think about 12 percent of the land, it's a relatively high percentage of land that would be required to 

construct these things. 

Comment ID 1229.001.007 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

In conclusion, I would just say that there should be biological validation of nutrient requirements prior to regulatory 

action. We are concerned that any assessments of biological health status of the water body also include the 

determination of the causes of any impairment, whether it's nutrients versus some other factor, to avoid spending 

resources unnecessarily for restoration efforts without any corresponding environmental improvement. Thank you. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2206
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1230.001.003 

Author Name: Craw V. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

These proposed rules will be the basis for the implementation of these programs, and if they are to be reasonable and 

cost effective, must be scientifically sound for our unique systems. 

Florida's environment creates a challenge in setting standards, as it has a diverse array of aquatic ecosystems, as 

such, the keys to develop criteria that are both ecologically meaningful and flexible, so that the specific needs of each 

water body can be met. 

The establishment of inappropriate numeric standards or the inability to include rule language to allow for flexibility 

could result in unintended environmental and economic consequences, such as causing many waters currently deemed 

healthy by established, science-based criteria to be classified as impaired, resulting in an inefficient diversion of limited 

management, and more importantly, financial resources in an attempt to improve or protect water quality without an 

ecological, and, therefore, public benefit. 

Comment ID 1240.001.003 

Author Name: Nurse K. 

Organization: 

And so, you know, we really need some help from you all. It doesn't make a lot of sense to -- to clean up the pollution 

afterwards when you can prevent it in the front end. And so frankly, we need some way to be able to get fertilizer 

ordinances across the state. I don't know if -- I don't believe the State will do it, I think it will have to be imposed from 

above. 

And that -- and that really operates for -- for septic tanks. Why in a -- in a state of 18 million people you would allow 

anybody to put a new septic tank in I can't imagine, and why you wouldn't sunset septic tanks. 

But we have counties, you know, within 30 miles of here that, you know, that have tens of thousands of septic tanks that 

are in, you know, in -- in, you know, not -- often not good shape. 

And so all I'm suggesting is that while local governments, particularly in the urban areas, have done some stuff, we are ­

- we are not hitting the targets, and it's going -- it's going -- it is going to be a challenge, and I'm -- and I'm asking you 

guys to -- to help with the kind of state-wide kind of push from above, because once you get outside of the -- of the 

areas along the coast, and using fertilizer, we're not going to successfully pass those ordinances, the power of the 

phosphate industry is -- is too strong once -- once you get very far away from the coast. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2207
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

And so that part I don't -- you know, unless you guys can muscle it from above, I think we're going to be in a world of 

hurt there. Thank you. 

Comment ID 1241.001.007 

Author Name: Latvala S. 

Organization: Pinellas County 

The County is concerned that the proposal for lakes and streams does not meet the level of technical assurance that 

will result in the effective use of our financial resources. 

If the Environmental Protection Agency cannot demonstrate a link between nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations, in 

response, in the biological community, local governments will end up spending very large sums of money without 

assurance that achieving these water quality limits will result in the common goal of healthy biological communities in 

Tampa Bay and its freshwater lakes and tributaries. 

Pinellas County is committed to continuing working with E.P.A. -- E.P.A. and D.E.P. to improve water quality and the 

biological ecosystems of the Tampa Bay region. 

Again, thank you for allowing us to be here tonight. 

Comment ID 1256.001.002 

Author Name: Wilson K. 

Organization: 

We have some concerns about the -- about the rulemaking, but we do support the need for -- for strong nutrient rules. 

And over the number of years between 2001 and 2009, in cooperation with D.E.P. and a number of other organizations, 

the Keys developed a reasonable assurance plan, much as many Florida organizations or counties have, and we urge 

E.P.A. to adopt those, which include numeric criteria for the nutrients. 

But that's for coastal water rulemaking next year, and we'll be providing significant detailed comments on that. 

Comment ID 1260-1.001.002 

Author Name: Hurner L. 

Organization: Florida Citrus Mutual 

Scientific Basis 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2208
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

EPA's Numeric Nutrient Criteria ignore the variability of Florida's surface waters. Numeric nutrient criteria must be site 

specific; otherwise, healthy water bodies will be deemed impaired and resources will be wasted attempting to make 

those water bodies meet nutrient concentrations they would not naturally meet due to their diversity. There is no way 

possible that a "one size fits all" approach can be applied to the entire state. 

Comment ID 1271.001.004 

Author Name: Pearson S. 

Organization: City of Gainesville 

For the numeric rule, we say first we thought this was guidance, not as an explicit regulatory mechanism. Second, 

prioritize it into high reading and low priority waters, if necessary. Third, have a five-year planning period for 

engineering, public outreach and financial planning and then begin the process. And for the second -- second -- second 

year -- second five-year planning period, go through the same process again and then begin working on the -- on the 

second group of waters at the end of that period. 

Comment ID 1282.001.002 

Author Name: Jones H. 

Organization: Duval County Farm Bureau 

One concern that I have with the proposed standards is the fact that they ignore the variability of Florida waters. 

Florida's rich in phosphates. Much of the world's phosphate fertilizer is mined in Florida. And our lakes that naturally 

contact the phosphate rich bedrock or depend on groundwater that contacts those bedrock, those lakes are going to 

have naturally high levels of phosphate. There's no provision in these standards to -- to address that. And the University 

of Florida Lake Watch Program has documented that we have some lakes with natural high nutrient levels. They're 

going to be listed as impaired even though that's their natural state. 

Comment ID 1284.001.004 

Author Name: Adams C. 

Organization: 

Then there's the screaming and crying over the one size fits all. Wrong. Considering most the data has come directly 

from DEP along with information from and with consultation from EPA's regional office, you can't expect us to actually 

believe that EPA is completely oblivious to the unique hydrogeology of this state. Unlike our own Department of 

Environmental Protection, EPA hasn't had its head willfully buried in the sand. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2209
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1287-1.001.002 

Author Name: Purvee L. 

Organization: Wastewater Treatment Plant # 2, City of Mount Dora Public Works and Utilities 

Although we all agree on keeping our waters clean, this proposed rule seems to be an attempt at a "fix all" solution at a 

problem that may not be as serious as others think (depending on the verification of the science used to determine 

these results). Florida understands its waters much more than EPA and has the insight and knowledge to deal with its 

ecosystems and should be allowed to use its state proven TMDL program. 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.004 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Section 2 provides information and data showing that the use of TN and TP are coarse measures of the bioavailable 

forms of nutrients and that only the bioavailable forms are expected to contribute to algae and aquatic plant growth. 

Because bioavailable forms of nutrients are measureable, EPA should have relied more heavily on their levels in 

flowing waters and their potential to influence water quality parameters that might be affected (i.e., response variables) 

by excessive loads. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) data, along with other data supplied in this 

report, show clearly that dissolved inorganic forms of N and P correlate more strongly to nutrient-related response 

variables than do TN and TP. The problem of focusing criteria on the coarse TN and TP measures is expanded when 

implementation of criteria as water quality based effluent limits is considered. In cases where effluent discharges 

contain significant fractions of non-bioavailable forms of N and P (e.g., certain organic N and P compounds), effluents 

may be unnecessarily limited, leading to requirements for effluent controls that yield no consequent environmental 

benefit. 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.005 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Section 3 of this report describes a procedure for quantitative assessment of uncertainty in the proposed criteria. EPA's 

own guidance documents state that uncertainty analysis is an important part of environmental decision-making. EPA, 

therefore, should have undertaken such an analysis of its proposed nutrient criteria for Florida waters. NCASI did 

undertake an uncertainty analysis and it is presented herein. The analysis shows that the criteria are highly uncertain 

with regard to predictions of biological condition, and in some cases are comparable to when the criteria were applied to 

data generated at random. While EPA has not provided any open discussion of uncertainty analysis, it has suggested a 

method for establishing alternative criteria for lakes that does, in essence, address uncertainty in the primary criteria. A 

similar approach is justified for flowing waters and should be part of any revised proposal. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2210
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.024 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

3.0 Determining the Appropriateness of Proposed Criteria by Quantifying Uncertainty in Predicting Biological Condition 

Summary 

EPA has not sufficiently characterized important aspects of uncertainty in the development of its proposed numeric 

nutrient criteria. As a consequence, EPA's proposed criteria for flowing waters are likely to yield rates of error pertaining 

to designated use attainment decisions so large that the utility of the criteria as a management tool for preventing and 

mitigating impairments of designated uses is severely compromised. 

EPA should have used a systematic approach, such as one based on its own guidance documents and consistent with 

EPA's systematic planning process, to estimate and address quantifiable uncertainties in its evaluation of stressorresponse and reference percentile approaches for proposing numeric nutrient criteria, especially for flowing waters. 

Without such a systematic process, several key determinations that support the proposed criteria appear to be arbitrary, 

and their bases are not transparent. These decisions include (a) determining what level of uncertainty in cause-effect 

evidence and strength of correlation is acceptable to support "scientifically defensible" criteria; (b) determining what 

should be done when these uncertainties are unacceptably high; (c) selecting an appropriate response variable, 

especially for flowing waters; and (d) developing proposed modified alternative criteria for lakes but not flowing waters. 

The analysis presented in this section provides an illustration of one approach for characterizing uncertainty in numeric 

nutrient criteria development and presents information on the potential for designated use attainment decision errors if 

the proposed criteria are adopted. An analysis similar to the one presented herein should have been done by EPA in 

accordance with its own guidance. Had this been done by EPA, stakeholders would have been more informed about 

the utility of the proposed criteria with respect to predicting stream impairment. If EPA chooses to reconsider the 

proposed criteria, it should conduct an uncertainty analysis to both quantify expected performance of the criteria and 

inform stakeholders of those expectations. 

Main Technical Findings

 • EPA has prepared guidance for investigating uncertainty in environmental decision-making, but EPA did not report 

any attempt at undertaking uncertainty analysis as part of the proposal. 

• NCASI undertook an uncertainty analysis of the proposed criteria. 

• NCASI found that the proposed criteria are likely to be poor predictors of the designated use status of Florida's flowing 

waters. In some cases the predictive performance of the proposed criteria was comparable when the criteria were 

applied to data generated at random. 

• EPA recognized but did not quantify excessive uncertainty in criteria for lakes and developed modified alternative 

criteria to minimize decision error in applying criteria. 

• EPA should have considered the same approach used for lakes when deriving criteria for flowing waters. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2211
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Specific Comments and Corresponding Science Analysis 

Considering Decision Error Rates in Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development 

Summary 

The selection of a numeric water quality criterion represents an environmental management decision that is made with 

uncertainty regarding whether the criterion adequately represents the range of values within which designated uses 

may be attained. EPA has an extensive systematic planning process for managing uncertainty and data quality in a 

variety of environmental decisions. Unfortunately, this process was not applied to development of the proposed numeric 

nutrient criteria for Florida. Application of a decision error framework based on EPA's Data Quality Objectives guidance 

to FDEP data indicates that EPA's proposed TP and TN criteria for flowing waters appear likely to mischaracterize a 

high proportion of biologically healthy waters as not attaining designated uses. For example, evaluation of one dataset 

indicated that 41 to 90% of surface waters that exceeded the proposed TP criterion would not be impaired based on 

Stream Condition Index (SCI). For TN the range was 51 to 91%. 

If EPA had chosen to explicitly incorporate systematic planning into its criteria development process, the proposed 

criteria for all Florida surface waters would probably be less prone to impairment decision errors. In addition, more 

consistent treatment in criteria for lakes and for flowing waters may have resulted. For lakes, uncertainty is managed by 

allowing higher modified criteria when information on the biological response variable is available. No such provision 

exists for flowing waters, and no explanation for this difference is provided by EPA. 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.025 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Introduction 

There is little debate over the need for controls of nutrient discharges to surface waters in certain situations. For the 

purpose of establishing state water quality standards (WQS), however, the most important question is "are numeric 

nutrient criteria adopted as state regulations useful in managing nutrient pollution?" To be useful, criteria should provide 

an indication, within an acceptable degree of uncertainty, of whether designated uses (DU) of a waterbody are being 

attained. The applicable DU for Florida Class III waters is "recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy, wellbalanced population of fish and wildlife." EPA's approach for developing the numeric nutrient criteria being proposed for 

the state of Florida does not appear to have included several basic elements of its own systematic planning process as 

described, for example, in its Data Quality Objectives guidance document (USEPA 2006, hereafter referred to as "DQO 

guidance"). As a consequence, using the proposed criteria to determine DU impairment appears to be prone to high 

rates of error, minimizing their usefulness in managing surface water quality. This is especially true of the criteria for 

flowing waters. 

There are several fundamental challenges in establishing useful numeric nutrient criteria. One is to determine a level of 

biological response that reflects a threshold between unimpaired and impaired designated face uses with an acceptable 

level of uncertainty. A second is to determine quantitatively how measures of biological condition respond to increases 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2212
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

and decreases in nutrient availability. This should be based on a quantitative understanding, again within acceptable 

uncertainty, of the nature of the cause-effect relationship between the response 16 variable and the nutrient variable. 

Some understanding of the magnitude of the influences of other variables, such as other water quality characteristics, 

hydrologic factors, geology, and landscape characteristics, on this relationship must also be developed. 

The value established for a numeric nutrient criterion represents an important environmental decision that, given the 

challenges mentioned above, potentially involves a high degree of uncertainty. When adopted into state regulations as 

WQSs, numeric nutrient criteria will affect a number of important water quality management decisions, such as whether 

or not a waterbody is meeting WQSs and actions needed to remediate waters or to ensure that waters attain WQSs. As 

with many such environmental decisions, the process of setting numeric nutrient criteria should be guided by a 

quantitative assessment of decision errors using an objective process. In the case of numeric nutrient criteria, the most 

relevant errors to be considered are related to the meaning and interpretation of criteria exceedances with respect to 

DU attainment. This statement is supported by EPA's nutrient criteria technical guidance manual for wetlands (USEPA 

2008, page 8-4), which states: 

"the primary goal of environmental assessment and management is to protect and restore ecosystem services and 

ecological attributes, which are often closely related to biological features and functions in ecosystems. Therefore, it is 

the effects of nutrients on the living components of ecosystems that should become the critical determinant of nutrient 

criteria, rather than the actual nutrient concentrations." 

Ideally, an exceedance of a numeric nutrient criterion would always indicate an unhealthy biological condition and 

attainment of the same criterion would never occur when biological condition is impaired. 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.086 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

9.0 A Review of EPA's Derivation of the Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Flowing Waters with Regard 

to EPA's 2009 Draft Guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numerical Nutrient Criteria and the Associated Science 

Advisory Board Peer Review Response 

Summary and Main Technical Findings 

The basis for EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida surface waters falls short of EPA's (USEPA 2009b) 

draft guidance on "Empirical Approaches for Numerical Nutrient Criteria Development" (hereinafter "draft empirical 

approaches guidance") and the Science Advisory Board Ecological Processes and Effects Committee ("SAB 

Committee") peer review response in several key areas. While those documents focused on stressor-response 

relationships to support numeric nutrient criteria, many of the important elements are relevant to other criteria 

development methods, including the reference/percentile approach that was ultimately used to derive the proposed 

criteria for flowing waters. Several of these are not given adequate attention in either the stressor-response or the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2213
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

reference/percentile approaches evaluated. Specifically: 

• Attention to development of a general conceptual model for Florida flowing waters is limited, and conceptual models 

for each nutrient watershed region have not been developed. 

• There is insufficient weight of evidence that the proposed criteria are adequately predictive of designated use 

impairment. 

• There is little indication that weak, statistically significant relationships and apparent changepoints have biological 

and/or ecological relevance or are related to designated uses. 

• Systematic planning to define acceptable levels of response variable and criteria uncertainty is absent from the 

technical support documentation provided with the rule. 

• The predictive ability of the proposed criteria has not been sufficiently evaluated by EPA. 

In short, the scientific basis of the proposed criteria is weak and unclear, and uncertainty in the ability of the proposed 

criteria to meet nutrient management needs is considerable. 

Specific Comments and Corresponding Science Analysis 

Introduction 

To derive its proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida, EPA evaluated the stressor-response approach for each of 

the major classes of waterbody types in Florida (i.e., lakes and reservoirs, flowing waters, springs, canals). The 

approach was ultimately retained as the basis for the proposed criteria for lakes and reservoirs and the nitrate criterion 

for springs and clear streams. Relationships between nutrient concentrations and ecosystem responses were 

characterized as too weak to use as the primary basis for numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters, and a 

reference/percentile approach was used instead. However, the finding of some weak but statistically significant nutrientresponse relationships and response "thresholds" appears to have 63 been used by EPA as justification for relying on 

the reference/percentile approach to establish the proposed criteria for both TN and TP for flowing waters. 

The methods used to derive numeric nutrient criteria in the US continue to evolve, and the stressor-response approach 

has been cited as a potentially useful method for deriving those criteria. However, there is little experience with real 

world applications of this potentially challenging and complex approach applied to nutrient impacts. In August 2009 EPA 

issued draft guidance, titled "Empirical Approaches for Numerical Nutrient Criteria Development" (USEPA 2009b), that 

focused on the stressor-response approach as applied to numeric nutrient criteria derivation, and asked an EPA 

Science Advisory Board Ecological Processes and Effects panel to provide peer review of the draft document. A public 

meeting of the SAB Committee was held in Washington, DC in September 2009. Several charge questions developed 

by EPA were discussed, and the SAB Committee began developing a written response to EPA. A draft report was 

produced and discussed in a public conference call held in December 2009 (SAB 2010). A revised report was then sent 

to the chartered SAB Committee for final review, and the report was approved for final submittal to EPA with minor 

revisions during a public conference call on March 24, 2010. 

The draft empirical approaches guidance and the related findings of the SAB Committee provide the most detailed 

information available to date on the strengths and challenges of the stressor-response approach as a method to derive 

numeric nutrient criteria. In addition, these recently available documents provide important guidance that is relevant to 

other approaches for numeric nutrient criteria development, including the reference/percentile approach. The following 

review highlights important elements discussed in those documents in relation to the proposed flowing waters criteria 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2214
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

and the process by which they were derived. It addresses the basis for the apparent conclusion that in spite of weak 

stressor-response relationships found in some instances, the stressor-response analysis provides sufficient evidence to 

support numeric criteria for TP and TN. Several important shortcomings relevant to the reference/percentile approach 

are also discussed. 

Essential Elements of an Appropriately Implemented Stressor-Response Approach 

Both the EPA draft empirical approaches document and the SAB Committee draft report indicate several elements that 

are fundamental to successful implementation of the stressor-response approach, including: 

• Statistical associations must be predictive and truly reflect cause and effect. 

• Patterns must reflect biological/ecological significance, not just statistical significance. 

• Response variables must be related to designated uses. 

While the use of statistical techniques to characterize relationships among field data can be complex, a more important 

challenge posed by the empirical stressor-response approach is proper interpretation of observed relationships that are 

derived from these analyses. This is true not only for relationships that appear linear, but also for those that appear to 

reflect possible response thresholds or "changepoints." Because statistical relationships do not, on their own, 64 

demonstrate cause and effect or biological significance, the three elements listed above dictate the need for two others: 

• Detailed conceptual models of nutrient impacts should be developed. 

• A weight of evidence approach is needed to support cause-effect conclusions. 

Both are critical to the scientific defensibility of the stressor-response approach. Detailed conceptual models of nutrient 

impacts on aquatic ecosystems that incorporate the potential influences of other variables are an important component 

of an appropriate weight of evidence approach. 

Finally, because the consequences of incorrect criteria to water quality and economic and social well-being can be high 

and because uncertainty in criteria cannot be eliminated, two additional elements are important: 

• Proposed or "candidate" criteria should be carefully evaluated for predictive accuracy. 

• A systematic planning process should be used early in criteria development to define acceptable levels of response 

variable and criteria uncertainty. 

An overarching requirement for effective numeric nutrient criteria is that they are predictive of designated use 

impairments based on a true characterization of cause and effect. Both the SAB Committee and the draft empirical 

approaches guidance emphasize this point. For example, the empirical approaches guidance states: 

"When stressor-response relationships are used to establish nutrient criteria, it is important to assess the degree to 

which changes in nutrient concentration are likely to cause changes in the chosen response variable." (page xi, 

emphasis added) 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2215
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Concerns Regarding Use of the Stressor-Response Approach as Support for the Proposed Criteria for Florida Flowing 

Waters 

Based on information provided in the draft empirical approaches guidance and the related SAB Committee review, each 

of the elements listed above plays an important role in successful derivation of numeric nutrient criteria using the 

stressor-response approach. Several important shortcomings in use of the approach to support criteria development for 

Florida flowing waters weaken the scientific validity of the criteria and lead to important questions regarding their utility 

as predictive tools for managing nutrients: 

• Absence of adequately detailed conceptual models supported by a weight of evidence, including elements that 

address expectations regarding the mechanisms for and biological relevance of statistical "changepoints" 

• An over-emphasis on secondary nutrient impacts (e.g., SCI) and an under-emphasis on primary nutrient impacts 

(aquatic plant community measures) 

• Inadequate evaluation of the ability of the proposed criteria to predict designated use impairment 65 

• Inadequate systematic planning to determine what level of predictive uncertainty is acceptable to stakeholders in 

Florida and to develop mechanisms to minimize that uncertainty 

The following sections describe these concerns in greater detail. 

Need for Detailed Conceptual Models Supported by Weight of Evidence Conceptual models make an important 

contribution to the weight of evidence that is critical to proper interpretation of statistical relationships that may be used 

to justify numeric criteria. As indicated by the SAB Committee draft report, detailed conceptual models are essential to 

guiding interpretation of data and statistical analyses. 

The nutrient criteria development process is likely to be best served when conceptual models contain considerable 

detail reflecting the most influential variables for a group of similar ecosystems. For example, in a discussion of the role 

of conceptual models the draft SAB Committee report states: 

"The Committee suggests that developing conceptual models/diagrams (more detailed and accurate than shown in 

Figure 10 of the Guidance) to illustrate linkages and feedbacks between nutrients and response variables would be a 

useful approach to capture ecological complexity and better construct the conceptual framework." (page 7) 

Figure 10 from the draft empirical approaches guidance is reproduced here. As the figure title indicates, it presents a 

"simplified" description of the way in which aquatic life uses may be affected by nutrient availability and many other 

factors. Where criteria are being derived for different ecosystems, as reflected by different nutrient ecoregions or 

watershed regions for example, more detailed conceptual models should capture differences in the most important 

causal factors in each region. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 10. Simplified diagram illustrating the causal pathway 

between nutrients and aquatic life use impacts. Nutrients enrich both plant/algal as well as microbial assemblages, 

which lead to changes in the physical/chemical habitat and food quality of streams. These effects directly impact the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2216
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

insect and fish assemblages. The effects of nutrients are influenced by a number of other confounding factors as well, 

such as light, flow, and temperature. from the comment report of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, 

Inc. (NCASI) relating to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water quality criteria for lakes and flowing 

waters in the State of Florida. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.093 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Based on reviews of information contained in EPA's proposal and supporting documentation, including "Technical 

Support Document for U.S. EPA's Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh 

Waters," (docket file EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.pdf and related files, referred to hereafter as "EPA TSD") and 

"Appendix B-1: FDEP's Stressor-Response Analyses for Florida Streams" (docket file EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596­

0003.16.pdf, referred to hereafter as "EPA TSD Appendix B-1"), the process used by EPA in deriving the proposed 

numeric nutrient criteria for Florida has not followed a systematic approach akin to that described in the DQO guidance. 

Consequently, the magnitude of decision errors associated with the proposed criteria remain unclear, as does the 

process of determining 17 what decision errors were deemed by EPA to be acceptable, and the implications of those 

choices for affected stakeholders. While the latter may be a question of policy, how the systematic process is applied is 

primarily a technical concern. 

The EPA Science Advisory Board Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (SAB Committee) has provided a draft 

report to the public in response to EPA's request for a review of a draft guidance document published in August 2009 

titled "Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation." That report was approved by the chartered SAB for 

finalization after minor revisions during a March 24, 2010, conference call. One of the SAB Committee's responses was 

a suggestion that EPA use the DQO process or a similar process in the evaluation of the utility of the stressor-response 

empirical approach. While this may have been done by EPA to some degree during the development of its proposed 

criteria, there is no explicit use of such an approach apparent in EPA's supporting documentation. 

Two important areas of uncertainty in considering empirical data in stressor-response relationships are: 

• presence or absence of cause-effect: evidence of cause and effect beyond the statistical correlation that may exist 

between stressor variables (e.g., nutrient concentrations) and response variables (e.g., chlorophyll a); and 

• the nature of the cause-effect relationship as indicated by the statistical correlation between stressor and response 

variables. The first can be informed by statistical correlation, but as the SAB Committee noted, uncertainty in whether a 

cause-effect relationship exists is best reduced through a weight of evidence approach because statistical correlation 

can occur without causation. The second is particularly amenable to the DQO-type framework. Although it involves only 

a portion of the total uncertainty in setting useful numeric nutrient criteria, this uncertainty can be readily quantified, and 

in some cases actions can then be taken to reduce it. The following illustrates how a DQO-type approach could have 

been applied to better characterize the decision errors associated with the proposed criteria. First, a general framework 

for applying the DQO process to numeric nutrient criteria development is presented. The framework is then applied to 

the proposed TP criterion for moderately colored, alkaline lakes and then to the derivation of the Instream Protective 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2217
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Value (IPV) for flowing waters. 

Applying EPA's DQO Framework 

EPA's DQO guidance provides a framework that can be used to control decision errors associated with uncertainty in 

the relationship between causal and response variables such as those relevant to numeric nutrient criteria. 

The framework is illustrated in Table 7 of the DQO guidance, shown here as Table 3.1, which conveys four possible 

decision outcomes in the context of statistical hypothesis testing to determine a "true condition" from a set of 

observations. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3.1. Table 7 from EPA DQO Document Showing the 

Basic Elements of a Hypothesis-Based Decision Error Framework from the comment report of the National Council for 

Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) relating to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water 

quality criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.010 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

Lack of Stressor-Response Relationship 

The EPA’s assertion that TN and TP should be the basis of setting appropriate and defensible numeric nutrient criteria 

is flawed. The Agency’s own analysis suggests that TN and TP concentrations are not accurate predictors of stream 

impairment and thus affect designated uses. EPA mischaracterized the utility of the “relationships” shown between 

selected nutrients and response variables. EPA has not demonstrated a useful relationship between causal variables 

and response variables. 

To summarize a pertinent observation of EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), proof of a correlation is not proof of 

causation. EPA’s own SAB highlights this concern with EPA’s approach to nutrient criteria in its draft review of EPA’s 

Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation (EPA’s Science Advisory Board Review Draft, August 17, 2009). 

See Science Advisory Board (SAB) Review from the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (“SAB Review”, 

January 8, 2010). Specifically, SAB stated: “The absence of a direct causative relationship between stressor and 

response is one of the most serious issues raised by the Committee.” (SAB Review at Page 4) The SAB further 

described their concern on this point as follows: 

Without a mechanistic understanding and a clear causative link between nutrient levels and impairment, there is no 

assurance that managing for particular nutrient levels will lead to the desired outcome. There are numerous empirical 

examples where a given nutrient level is associated with a wide range of response values due to the influence of 

habitat, light levels, grazer populations and other factors. If the numeric criteria are not based upon well-established 

causative relationships, the scientific basis of the water quality standards will be seriously undermined. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2218
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

EPA’s proposed numeric standards do not even satisfy the first logical step; demonstrating a consistent and strong 

correlation between the asserted causal variables (TN and TP) and recognized response variables. Thus, the proposed 

numeric standards lack a basic foundation in science: they lack a reliable stressor and response relationship. 

EPA has inappropriately relied on TN and TP as the primary measures by which waters in Florida would be judged to 

be impaired for nutrients. FDEP, in its analysis and comments to EPA concerning this rulemaking, has shown that a 

very high percentage of unimpaired, biologically healthy waters in the State have TN and TP concentrations in excess 

of the proposed criteria. The promulgation of criteria that are not defensible as a predictive breakpoint between 

biologically healthy and biologically unhealthy waters is of little value in protecting the designated use of Florida’s 

waters. In fact, criteria that are not predictive of aquatic impairments are detrimental to environmental improvement. The 

forced implementation of criteria that are not linked to impairments, and thus are without merit in the public interest, will 

result in the expenditure of limited capital resources for no consequent environmental benefit and thereby denying the 

availability of those funds for making meaningful environmental improvements. 

EPA’s proposed rule lacks scientific justification for linking nutrients (in the form of TN and TP) to the specific biological 

health of Florida waters. NCASI has conducted an assessment of the analysis presented by EPA to justify the proposed 

selection of TN and TP as predictors of algal response and, in concert with peer-reviewed and other relevant literature, 

specifically show that: 

� 

•�EPA’s analysis of TN and TP data for flowing waters provides little or no evidence that TN and TP concentrations in 

ranges proximate to the proposed criteria are causal to stream condition or algal quantities; 

•�analysis of the FDEP data on which the proposed criteria are based shows little or no support for the view that EPA’s 

proposed TN and TP criteria represent thresholds reflecting any important environmental condition; 

•�meaningful criteria would be better derived from variables such as soluble inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus that have 

a more direct link to the growth of aquatic plants; 

•�other water quality and site condition variables (e.g., canopy cover, stream color, bioavailable nutrient forms) are more 

important than TN and TP with respect to indicating water quality condition; and that 

•�use of TN and TP criteria, in lieu of criteria based on bioavailable forms, to limit wastewater discharges of nutrients will 

over estimate the potential for discharges to impact receiving waters 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.031 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

4. Consideration of Natural Background 

EPA determined that numeric nutrient standards are necessary for the State of Florida, and argues that determination 

provides EPA with its justification for the adoption of the proposed standard. However, the Agency has not considered 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2219
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

certain elements of Florida's water quality standards, which are also adopted as Federal Water Quality Standards. 

Under Florida's water quality standards, (approved by EPA and thus a federal standard), "the Department shall not 

strive to abate natural conditions." (62-302.300(15), F.A.C.) In selecting numeric criteria based solely on the selection of 

an arbitrary number, the proposed standard will inevitably force regulatory decisions that would do nothing but attempt 

to "abate" naturally high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.033 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

Additionally, under Florida law, "[i]n applying the water quality standards, the Department shall take into account the 

variability occurring in nature and shall recognize the statistical variability inherent in sampling and testing procedures. 

The Department's assessment methodology, set forth in Chapter 62-303, F.A.C., accounts for such natural and 

statistical variability when used to assess ambient waters pursuant to sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Federal Clean 

Water Act." (62-300.530, F.A.C.) Unlike the "Impaired Waters Rule" set out in Chapter 62-303, EPA's proposed 

regulation fails to account for the extreme variability occurring in natural conditions, specifically, causal variables other 

than nitrogen and phosphorus. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.038 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

The report from HydroQual presents concepts that the Agency should consider when selecting appropriate causal 

variables or even determining the need to set numeric nutrient criteria. In its report HydroQual discusses that DO 

criteria developed were intended to protect aquatic life as derived from laboratory studies investigating the effects of DO 

on aquatic life growth and survival. In the timeframe since the first BOD-DO model was developed, BOD water quality 

criteria have never been established because there are site-specific conditions that cause a wide range in the 

assimilation capacity of a water body. For example, a turbulent stream with a high degree of atmospheric reaeration can 

assimilate more BOD than a sluggish stream with little atmospheric reaeration. As a consequence, historically the 

regulation of BOD has always considered site-specific conditions including other factors that affect water column DO 

levels (i.e., reaeration, SOD, ammonia nitrification, algal photosynthesis and respiration). 

If site-specific conditions for BOD effects (i.e., the DO response variable) were not considered and if BOD5 criteria were 

established using a percentile approach using all stream data (criteria set at 25th percentile) then potential instream 

BOD5 criteria could be less than 2 mg/L, which is less than the detection limit. The analysis from HydroQual provides 

data from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) database that show 

minimal BOD5 correlation to DO (as expected) and the results of applying the percentile approach to BOD5 criteria 

development. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2220
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.042 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

EPA's proposed rule focuses on abating nutrient enrichment as the sole method of achieving and protecting lake and 

stream biological health as well as attaining designated uses. Adverse effects of nutrient over-enrichment are well 

known and no attempt is made here to minimize those concerns. However, in the proposed EPA rule comparatively little 

attention is focused on the potential for adverse effects of nutrient "under-enrichment". The body of literature presented 

in the Technology and Cost Study, as well as many others, illustrates the fact that nutrients should not be managed in 

the same manner as toxics. Less is not always more in the case of nutrients, and any final numeric nutrient criteria 

should reflect this fact. The EPA proposed rule fails to provide an assessment of the potential for adverse biological 

effects from reduced nutrient levels while the rule, as previously discussed, does not provide any evidence that the 

criteria, as proposed, will benefit and protect aquatic health while attaining designated uses. 

Comment ID 1305.001.003 

Author Name: Palmer D. 

Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority 

Limits have nothing to do with the assimilative capacity of the water body. They're not site specific. They're not based in 

cause and effect relationships. 

Comment ID 1320.001.004 

Author Name: Johns C. 

Organization: 

One small anecdote I have is, I happen to be the nephew that is currently working trying to implement drip irrigation on 

commercial potato production. And before -- before I started looking at this problem, I didn't even know that the 

University of Florida, I think back in the late '80s, had already addressed the issue or had looked into this as a possible 

solution, but at the time the technology wasn't to the point, it was still way too expensive to implement economically. But 

I just happened to start looking into it a little over a year ago and I got into it. And the technology for micro irrigation has 

advanced tremendously since then and becoming much more cost effective. And I'm -- I've gotten into -- I've got a trial 

going on right now to do it. And it represents, you know, if I can figure out a way to -- to manage it effectively and 

economically, it reduces nutrient runoff. 

But this is a natural part of the process, you know, these things take time. My trial is probably going to last four or five 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2221
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

years. And I know to many people that that would seem not fast enough, but in order for these things to get done and 

get done right, it really -- we really have to make sure we're taking our time and using appropriate methods so that we 

actually solve and get appropriate fixes to these -- these problems, good solutions. 

Comment ID 1321.001.010 

Author Name: St. John T. 

Organization: Nature Conservancy 

And we support the use of biological monitoring associated with these criteria to ultimately answer whether or not they 

fulfill the goal of environmental protection. This is especially important because of the inherent differences in each water 

body and how nutrients as well as other numerous factors ultimately influence bios in these systems. Bios such nitrates 

and vertebrates can be further used to determine if these criteria are indeed effective in improving the biology and 

ecology of our rivers and streams. And this feedback will be -- will be important to ensure that the nutrient criteria are 

helping the water bodies that we care about. 

Comment ID 1331-1.001.006 

Author Name: Aldstadt S. 

Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works 

Accordingly, San Bernardino's primary concern with the proposed criteria is their scientiflc validity. The criteria do not 

account for the biological responses of the water bodies regulated- i.e., the unique characteristics of nutrients and their 

potential impacts. Rather, the criteria are based on an erroneous assumption that lower nutrient concentrations are 

always better. 

Comment ID 1333.001.007 

Author Name: Hauck A. 

Organization: Council of Civic Associations 

Second, the EPA needs to be reminded that they decided that different regions of the state to should different values for 

surface waters because of the inherent environmental differences in those regions. In other words, the EPA recognizes 

that various parts of the state are essentially different ecosystems. Well, why not look at the surface water system within 

each region the same way? Don't just look at the lakes and streams, but also factor in the estuaries, so that a holistic 

approach is taken -- ecosystem. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2222
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1334.001.004 

Author Name: Milicevic M. 

Organization: 

My second point of efficiency has to do with the fact that the FDEP has spent many years in researching and millions of 

dollars compiling data that we just don't need to abandon because some attorneys have convinced a judge that Florida 

is taking too long to clean up these waters in the state. This state's water is too complex to have one broad brushstroke 

encompass all the waters in this state. We don't need to clean up our pristine waters, but with these numeric criteria that 

are proposed, we will be adding in 80 percent of Florida's designated pristine water to this list of impaired waters. This 

is, in my mind, quite inefficient. Putting this into perspective, I would like to give you a little different contrast, one that 

we all use every day. If we have one number for all of the state of Florida for the different waters in the state, it's like 

having one speed limit for all the highways and roads across the state. It's just not reasonable or is it practical. 

Comment ID 1338-1.001.005 

Author Name: Champion T. 

Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC 

Protection of Designated Uses: 

Proposal: The proposed rule would establish numeric nutrient water quality standards for lakes (40 CFR 131.43(c)(1)) 

and for streams (40 CFR 131.43(c)(2)) using stressor-response and reference condition approaches based on EPA's 

determination that Florida's present approach is insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated uses. 

Comment: EPA's issuance of numeric nutrient water quality criteria based on generic categories of waterbodies does 

not provide the appropriate protection of designated uses that it professes to achieve through this regulatory action. 

Nutrients are essential for a healthy and balanced ecosystem. In order to protect Florida's waters, it is essential to 

accurately determine the concentrations of nutrients needed to achieve the proper balance, rather than set overly 

simplistic criteria that may upset this balance. EPA has stated in the proposed rule that the preferred approach is 

mechanistic modeling, but instead, EPA employed stressor-response and reference condition approaches because the 

more rigorous approach is difficult, time consuming and costly. As set forth in more detail in NCASI's comments, the 

errors associated with determining whether a water body is impaired are so great that it amounts to the functional 

equivalent of "flipping a coin". This results in an arbitrary approach that is not protective of Florida waters. Additionally, 

as HydroQual states in the FPPAEA's comments, "Mechanistic site-specific models for lakes, rivers, and estuaries are 

the most reliable and scientifically defensible approach to regulating nutrients based on established nutrient response 

criteria. The cost and time to collect site-specific data and develop mechanistic models can be significant...but can be 

significantly less than the cost of implementing nutrient reductions..." Shouldn't that approach be the preferred process 

used to determine the proper nutrient balance for a waterbody, if the objective is healthy lakes and streams? 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2223
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1341.001.002 

Author Name: Ambrose L. 

Organization: Genesis Group 

And the point I want to get across tonight is the technology and the good science is there. The alternative approaches 

and methodology to nonpoint source pollution or, you know, which leads to the algal blooms is there. The sustainable 

practices that can be implemented on a lot, block, neighborhood, community and even regional scale is there. And I'm 

hoping that with the passage of this -- of this proposed rule, that this opens the door to be -- to more access to these 

sustainable practices and these alternative approaches. So many people don't realize that simple practices that they 

can do within their neighborhood and right there in their homes make a huge difference in water quality and also the 

stormwater management. And these methodologies, good science, and practices are not only beneficial to the 

environment, proven and successful, they're also cost effective. They work to save the developer money, they save the 

lot owner home, and they save homeowner associations and special district boards lots and lots of money because 

they're sustainable practices. It's not chemical amendments where it's just only short-term relief and then you've got to 

reapply a short time later. And it's complex science. There's some complex technologies. I heard somebody mention 

there's turf scrubbers, and that's kind of over a lot of people's head. But then there's also very good science that Mr. 

Speed was talking about, which is bioaugmentation programs that -- basically it's as simple as building healthy soil. So 

few people do not realize that if you build and maintain healthy soil, you can cut and reduce the fertilizer. You don't have 

to add this chemical and fertilizer. You can add organic and biologically based soil or microorganisms that work to 

sustain the soil and keep it viable, do good source erosion control and also prevent stormwater runoff. And then there's 

also the simple common sense things like mulching, compost, biotar, which is the pyrolysis of biomass or what we know 

as yard waste. A holistic program that takes care of the terrestrial and also the lake management. And so when you're 

taking care of both, you don't need to bring in those lake doctors that dose it with copper sulfate, which is pretty much 

heavy metals that do not break down and pile up in the sediment. So bottom line is that there is no shining bullet to 

solve water quality concerns, but I'm hoping that this is something that we can get excited about, where more people 

can learn how they can be -- implement sustainable practices in their home and at work and with better access to 

knowledge and education. And also with developers, it's not just an option to be green, it's more or less a requirement 

out of necessity to -- to improve our waterways. 

Comment ID 1346-1.001.007 

Author Name: Still D. 

Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 

The EPA determined that Florida's narrative criterion alone is insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated 

uses, and that development of site-specific standards was too data intensive and lengthy. The SRWMD contends that 

the narrative criterion is appropriate for water bodies within our District because it protects the natural nutrient dynamics 

of the SRWMD's varied water bodies. For water bodies with nitrogen and phosphorous values below EPA's proposed 

numeric criteria, setting numeric standards may actually facilitate degradation of water quality by setting a degradation 

target. SRWMD requests EPA work with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and SRWMD to develop 

tools to implement the narrative criterion on a site-specific basis for waters not meeting designated uses. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2224
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1348-1.001.004 

Author Name: Vick J. 

Organization: Gulf Power Company 

As explained below, the standards proposed in the NNC rule by EPA lack scientific basis. Neither the State of Florida 

nor EPA could identify specific thresholds for establishing numeric TP and TN criteria because of a lack of a doseresponse relationship. Given this lack in a dose-response relationship, this proposed regulation will result in arbitrary 

and unnecessary regulations for Gulf and our customers. This will likely result in higher than needed utility rates and 

negatively affect our customers with little or no benefit. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.009 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

Stormwater Design Criteria 

In a 2007 report by Harper and Baker, mean stonnwater runoff characteristics from specific landuses were determined 

based on an extensive and robust literature reviewprocess. Based on this study, it was determined that the mean 

values of TN and TP from undeveloped, forested land were 1.15 and 0.055 mg/L respectively (Harper and Baker, 

2007). This report therefore suggests that rainwater running across the surface of undeveloped, natural lands will likely 

generate nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations close to, or in some cases in exceedance of, the EPA proposed 

nutrient criteria. This is especially true in Polk County where soil phosphate levels are naturally elevated. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.038 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

Finally, the rule should incorporate some ability to refine the criteria if the criteria are found to not be representative for a 

particular waterbody due to natural or regional (i.e., not anthropogenic) influences. The following are some of the 

specific major issues and questions identified in this review: 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.045 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2225
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

As noted in other comments filed in this rulemaking, in setting criteria for streams, springs, and canals, EPA did not 

establish a cause-and-effect relationship between nutrient levels and impacts on designated uses, and did not identify 

threshold nutrient levels necessary to protect the uses of water bodies. 

As a result, EPA did not follow its own guidance and has not developed scientifically defensible criteria. As a result, 

EPA's criteria fail to follow EPA's own guidance. Accordingly, the FWQC respectfully submits that EPA's proposed 

criteria are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 500 et. seq. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.046 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

2. EPA's proposed criteria fail to follow SAB recommendations. 

EPA's own SAB highlights these general concerns with EPA's approach to nutrient criteria in its draft review of EPA's 

Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation (draft EPA 2009). Specifically: "The Committee emphasizes that 

understanding the causative link between nutrient levels and impairment is necessary in order to assure that managing 

for particular nutrient levels will lead to desired outcomes." Draft SAB Report, at 4. The SAB elaborated as follows: 

Without a mechanistic understanding and a clear causative link between nutrient levels and impairment, there is no 

assurance that managing for particular nutrient levels will lead to the desired outcome. There are numerous empirical 

examples where a given nutrient level is associated with a wide range of response values due to the influence of 

habitat, light levels, grazer populations and other factors. If the numeric criteria are not based upon wellestablished 

causative relationships, the scientific basis of the water quality standards will be seriously undermined. 

Id. 

While the guidance that the SAB currently is reviewing focuses on stressor-response models, the concerns expressed 

by the SAB regarding the need to establish cause-and-effect apply equally to the reference approach to establishing 

water quality standards. The SAB states that the most scientifically defensible strategy for managing nutrients within the 

range of uncertainty is to verify a biological response prior to taking a management action. The SAB further notes that 

these risk-based linkages are not addressed in either the Guidance or EPA's Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance 

documents for Rivers and Streams (2000), Lakes and Reservoirs (2000), and Estuaries (2001). Draft SAB Report, at 6. 

With respect to water quality models, the SAB stresses that site-specific data must be used as inputs for the models to 

be scientifically defensible: "It is possible to use these water quality models to describe exposure (in terms of ambient 

nutrient concentrations) but in the absence of empirical data, this would not be scientifically defensible." Id. at 18. 

Models must adequately reflect the great variety of site-specific conditions: "Given the many factors that affect streams 

and rivers, system-specific analysis really provides an assessment of whether altering nutrient concentrations would 

have the desired effect on the biotic communities present." Id. at 20. If site-specific conditions are not taken into 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2226
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

account, there is no assurance that criteria will protect designated uses: 

For criteria that meet EPA's stated goal of "protecting against environmental degradation by nutrients," the underlying 

causal models must be correct. Habitat condition is a crucial consideration in this regard (e.g., light [for example, 

canopy cover], hydrology, grazer abundance, velocity, sediment type) that is not adequately addressed in the 

Guidance. Thus, a major uncertainty inherent in the Guidance is accounting for factors that influence biological 

responses to nutrient inputs. Addressing this uncertainty requires adequately accounting for these factors in different 

types of waterbodies. 

Id. at 37. 

Unfortunately, the criteria proposed by EPA are state-wide criteria that are based on very broad classifications of lakes 

and flowing streams and fail to take into account local conditions, cause-and-effect relationships, and threshold levels. 

EPA has signed a consent decree agreeing to finalize this rulemaking by October 15, 2010, to settle a claim against it 

by the Florida Wildlife Federation, and others (Northern District of Florida, Case No. 4:080cv-00324-RH-WCS). 

EPA also has asked Science Advisory Board (SAB) to review the Agency's draft Technical Guidance on Empirical 

Approaches for Numerical Nutrient Criteria Development. The SAB's final report is expected in April. By rushing through 

this rulemaking, EPA is not taking the time to consider the advice of its own panel of experts that it has convened on 

developing nutrient criteria. 

The failure to take into account the advice of the SAB would render this rulemaking arbitrary and capricious, in violation 

of the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Comment ID 1359-1.001.052 

Author Name: Andes F. 

Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 

1. Numeric nutrient criteria are not necessary to protect water quality. 

As noted by EPA's Science Advisory Board (D, in other contexts EPA has not found numeric nutrient criteria to be 

necessary to protect water quality: 

[T]he way in which EPA used results from mechanistic models to develop nutrient load reduction goals for the Gulf of 

Mexico (Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task force, 2008), and the way in which it is currently 

using mechanistic models for nutrient and sediment TMDLs for Chesapeake Bay, does not involve development or use 

of numeric nutrient criteria. The reason is that these mechanistic models (Scavia et al., 2004; Cerco and Noel, 2004) 

are load-response models, not empirical stressor-response models, and hence they obviate the need for numeric 

nutrient criteria because they directly link nutrient loads to response variables that represent water quality impairments 

(e.g., dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll, water clarity and acreage of submerged aquatic vegetation). 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2227
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

1-8-10 Draft Science Advisory Boar (SAB) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee Advisory Report (hereinafter 

Daft SAB Report), at 5 (emphasis added). [1] 

[1] SAB Report underwent SAB quality review on March 24, 2010, and received support with a few editorial comments. 

However, the final report has not yet been issued. 

Comment ID 1360-1.001.001 

Author Name: Cook R. 

Organization: Daytona Beach Utilities Department 

- Staff is concerned with the "one size fits all" concept. Topography, hydrology, geology and biology will all play a role in 

the type and concentration of nutrients in the area. The proposed criteria may in fact be counter-productive to the 

intended use of a water body as well as being lower than the ambient level of nutrients in the water body. The cause 

and effect relationship of the nutrient levels and surface water impairment has still not been effectively established. 

Comment ID 1360-1.001.003 

Author Name: Cook R. 

Organization: Daytona Beach Utilities Department 

Some lakes and streams have naturally high phosphorus levels due to direct interaction with bedrock and groundwater. 

Any criteria must distinguish between naturally occurring levels and those from other sources. 

Comment ID 1361-1.001.009 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: North Carolina Division of Water Quality 

- NCDWQ scientists have observed that nutrient concentrations do not uniformly correlate with nutrient response 

parameters; therefore, successfully regulating nutrients requires a complex and multi-faceted approach, is situational, 

and requires flexibility as a critical and highly necessary component of water quality standards programs. 

Comment ID 1361-1.001.010 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: North Carolina Division of Water Quality 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2228
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

- The NCDWQ supports the approach of biological validation as an additional line of evidence to making impairment 

decisions, and this approach is also described in Florida's comments. NCDWQ encourages EPA to also support this 

approach where standards have been developed based on something other than a cause and effect relationship. 

Comment ID 1363-1.001.003 

Author Name: Butler N. 

Organization: Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. 

2. Inorganic Forms Of Nitrogen and Phosphorus, Like Those In Effluent From Smurfit-Stone's Florida Mills, Are Not 

Readily Bioavailable, But The Form of Nutrients Has Not Been Considered In The Proposed Rule. 

Unlike municipal effluent, most of the nitrogen in pulp and paper mill effluents is tied up in organic compounds. Based 

on a NCASI study of nitrogen in pulp and paper mill effluents, approximately 59 percent of the organic nitrogen in 

effluent generated by these mills is considered refractory (i.e., it degrades to inorganic forms at a rate that is an order of 

magnitude slower than the labile rate). As such, the nitrogen in pulp and paper mill effluents is not readily bioavailable 

and, thus, does not impact the ability of receiving waters to achieve their designated uses. In the Proposed Rule, EPA 

has failed to distinguish between forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, and has not accounted for the fact that inorganic 

forms of these nutrients are not readily bioavailable when discharged in pulp and paper mill effluents. 

Comment ID 1363-1.001.008 

Author Name: Butler N. 

Organization: Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. 

In sum, for the reasons more fully articulated by FPPAEA, AF&PA and numerous other organizations in their respective 

comments on the Proposed Rule, EPA's use of TN and TP as parameters to control nutrient impacts on designated 

uses in streams and lakes is flawed in that it does not account for the bioavailability of nutrients and does not provide a 

cause-effect relationship with nutrient-related response variables. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.005 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

Summary of Kev OCU Comments on Proposed NNC 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2229
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

We would like to highlight a few of the many concerns (see Attachment A) we have with the proposed NNC. Our first 

concern is the lack of a relationship between the nutrient criteria and designated uses. The criteria were not based on 

biological responses to nutrients (i.e., a "dose-response" relationship), but rather are derived from a statistical averaging 

method applied to large regions of Florida, each with diverse ecosystems and designated uses. EPA's statistical 

method guarantees that a large fraction of all the waterbodies in Florida will be declared impaired regardless of any 

demonstration of actual impairment to their designated use. The proposed NNC regulation, therefore, is ill suited to 

solving the actual water quality problems in Florida (l.e., the statistical approach will overprotect many waterbodies, 

while under protecting others). Biological validation should be required prior to listing a waterbody as impaired 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.032 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

19. The measurement of chlorophyll a may not be needed once the TP and TN criteria are established. Additionally, 

only 18 labs in the state are certified for measuring chlorophyll a. 

Comment ID 1371-1.001.003 

Author Name: Porta T. 

Organization: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators 

EPA Should Consider and Address Concerns Raised by a Recent SAB Committee Review of Nutrient Criteria 

Guidance 

EPA's Science Advisory Board's Ecological Processes and Effects Committee recently reviewed proposed EPA 

guidance, "Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation." The SAB Committee raised many concerns with the 

use of stressor-response relationships for deriving numeric nutrient criteria, calling the approach "problematic", and 

suggesting that a "weight of evidence" approach might be more productive way to reduce uncertainty. 

Comment ID 1371-1.001.005 

Author Name: Porta T. 

Organization: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators 

The Challenge-Nutrients Have Weak Concentration-Response Relationships 

The link between nutrient concentrations and adverse impacts on aquatic life is neither direct nor consistent from 

waterbody to waterbody. This basic limitation was not acknowledged in USEPA's "reference approach" or stressor 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2230
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

response evaluations based on nutrient concentration data used to develop the proposed Florida standards. It remains 

a major confounding factor in efforts by the states to develop their own numerical water quality standards. As noted 

above, unlike most pollutants for which standards are derived, nutrients are not toxic substances for which a welldefined concentration-response relationship can be described, as evidenced by the generally poor correlation 

coefficients produced in the analysis. Nutrients exert their adverse aquatic life effects through increased growth of 

algae, fungus and microbes which subsequently creates adverse conditions for aquatic organisms (e.g. low dissolved 

oxygen). Other indirect alterations to conditions include increases in pH, which alters the availability and solubility of 

other important chemicals. Nutrients may also result in alterations to the algal community composition and abundance 

sometimes resulting in degradation of aquatic food webs. However, the extent to which these adverse effects occur 

within a waterbody depends on a wide range of other critical factors such as sunlight, optimal substrate, flow, 

temperature, and background water chemistry. The combination of factors is usually very site-specific, which makes 

attempting to establish generalized criteria for nutrients very difficult. Hence, states have found that certain levels of 

nutrients in a stream that might cause impairment of the aquatic life use or aesthetic/recreational issues under a one set 

of conditions, would not negatively impact the use in a different stream. 

Comment ID 1371-1.001.006 

Author Name: Porta T. 

Organization: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators 

Weight of Evidence Approach Needed 

Since nutrients exert their effects on aquatic life only in the presence of the right combination of other factors, and there 

are a range of acceptable conditions that define "healthy" aquatic ecosystems, depending on waterbody trophic 

tendency, a weight of evidence approach is needed to identify waters that may be undesirably affected by high levels of 

nutrients or to determine that nutrients are the key to biological impairment. State programs have for many years 

effectively assessed aquatic life use support based on the health of the biotic community and have appropriately used 

water quality standards to assist in determining the cause of the observed biological impairment. This has generally 

been done on a watershed specific basis. For example, if high levels of nutrients are present in a water body where 

high chlorophyll a, high light levels, low night-time dissolved oxygen levels, and daytime oxygen saturation above 100% 

are also observed, state biologists may conclude that biological impairments noted are due to the influence of 

excessive, anthropogenic nutrients. In an NPDES permitting context, nutrient limits should be in place that will protect 

receiving or downstream waters based on water quality criteria that are shown to be necessary to protect the use, and 

where applicable, consistent with their trophic tendencies and susceptibility to the presence of excess nutrient loads. By 

contrast, USEPA has typically urged application of standards based on concentration data, which are often poorly 

correlated to or independent of what the biology might be indicating. 

Especially in view of the complex interactions by which nutrients exert their adverse impacts, and the lack of a doseresponse relationship, ASIWPCA recommends that nutrient standards be applied only when there is biological 

confirmation of an impact related to nutrient loads from human sources that exceeds stressor identification and nutrient 

susceptibility determinations for the waterbody and that there is confidence that nutrient control is key to use attainment. 

Nutrient standards should be applied in a manner that provides for different levels when biological monitoring or more 

sophisticated analysis indicate that alternative levels, including existing concentrations and loads are providing use 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2231
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

protection. 

Comment ID 1371-1.001.008 

Author Name: Porta T. 

Organization: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators 

Alternate Approach Needed 

USEPA is asking states to develop nutrient standards using a model that was built for pollutants with different 

causal/response relationships Recognizing the impracticality and limitation of resources to establish waterbody-bywaterbody standards, which would be ideal-the best approach to managing nutrients would be site specific. USEPA 

needs to allow states to utilize a weight of evidence framework rather than a "one number fits all" (and one exceedance 

trumps all) approach in developing and applying standards. Further, USEPA should also consider establishing an 

alternate path for nutrient management that is based on best available technology/practices that optimize loading from 

both point sources and non-point sources and that has the same level of accountability for reductions from all sources. 

The water quality based approach, i.e., relying on water quality based effluent limits and TMDLs, is a hard, slow road 

that leads to expensive controls for point sources, or to use attainability analyses where unnecessary. ASIWPCA 

recommends that we focus on what will address the nutrient pollution problem as cost-effectively and quickly as 

possible. 

Comment ID 1414-1.001.008 

Author Name: Poltak R. 

Organization: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 

5) EPA should not require the states to adopt nutrient criteria variables as stand-alone values in cases where the 

variability in response to nutrient criteria enrichment is great. 

The relationship between nutrient criteria values (such as total phosphorus or total nitrogen concentrations) and 

response variables (transparency, chlorophyll a, biological condition) is often highly variable in lakes and rivers. As a 

result, impairment decisions based on these criteria have high rates of false positive and false negative determinations. 

Using measurements of response variables to supersede nutrient concentration measurements in making impairment 

decisions for 303(d) listing and permit compliance can minimize the number of incorrect use impairment determinations. 

The rationale for this approach is that response variables are more directly related to use support than are chemical 

measurements of phosphorus or nitrogen concentrations. The Northeast states of Maine and Vermont have developed 

proposed nutrient criteria frameworks that use this approach. 

In a September 2009 letter from Denise Keehner of EPA to Jerry Brooks of Florida DEP, EPA has interpreted the Clean 

Water Act to require that phosphorus and nitrogen criteria .for Florida must be applied as stand-alone values and that 

compliance with response variables such as chlorophyll a or biological condition would not be sufficient. EPA Region 1 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2232
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

has advised the states of Maine and Vermont similarly in reviewing their nutrient criteria proposals. The provision in the 

Proposed Rule for alternate, site-specific nutrient criteria to apply in lakes when response criteria values are achieved is 

a partial solution, but does not fully address the states' concerns. Use of alternative criteria values based on the 50th 

percentile for the prediction interval of a chlorophyll-phosphorus regression would be arbitrary and not directly linked to 

use support. If the biological criterion (e.g., chlorophyll a) in a lake is met, it should not matter what the nutrient levels 

are in that lake, regardless if they are outside the upper or lower bounds of a statistical prediction interval. Enforcement 

of nitrogen and phosphorus criteria where no biological impairment exists will be resource intensive and will redirect 

resources away from sites whey are really needed for addressing impairments. If the goal is to protect aquatic life uses, 

appropriate biological response data should be the overruling endpoint considered. The Northeast states feel strongly 

that states should be allowed to establish a nutrient criteria framework that uses response variables as the definitive 

determination of impairment. 

Comment ID 1416-1.001.023 

Author Name: Alves J. 

Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. 

EPA's broad-brushed regional criteria fail to acknowledge that the amount of nutrients that water bodies need -- as well 

as the amount at which nutrient loads create problems -varies from water body to water body. Natural variables such as 

stream biology, color, shading, flow rate, pH, and so on. require site specific nutrient standards.[34] In the words of 

EPA's Science Advisory Board, "statistical associations may not be biologically relevant and do not prove cause and 

effect," and "in order to be scientifically defensible, empirical methods must take into consideration the influence of 

other variables." [35] 

[34] EPA, Science Advisory Board, Processes and Effects Committee Advisory Report, Draft, I (Jan. 8. 2010) ("The 

empirical stressor-response framework described in the Guidance [developed by EPA for promulgating nutrient 

standards] is one possible approach for deriving numeric nutrient criteria, but the uncertainty associated with estimated 

stressor-response relationships would be problematic if this approach were used as a 'stand alone' method because 

statistical associations do not prove cause and effect.") (emphasis added); FDEP, Main Concerns with the 

Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters 

published January 26,2010, at I (Feb. 17, 20 I0) ("EPA did not fully acknowledge basic limitation of "reference 

approach", that there is no link between criteria and impairment (no "dose-response" relationship)."), available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/dep_concerns_epa_nutrients_0210.pdf. 

[35] Id. at 22. 

Comment ID 1416-1.001.025 

Author Name: Alves J. 

Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. 

(b) Problems with Reference Waters In the SJRWMD 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2233
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

A 2006 report by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) analyzed water quality trends for select 

SJRWMD waters.[41] Although the district was not specifically utilizing FDEP's Impaired Waters Rule or attempting to 

determine if waters were meeting designated uses, the analysis considered the nutrient health of the district waters.[42] 

A dozen of the lakes, streams, and springs that graded out as exhibiting "good water quality" in this report nevertheless 

fail to meet one or more parameters of EPA's regional criteria.[43] 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the table on pages 17 and 18 of the pdf of water quality in the 

SJRWMD. See original comment letter. 

SJRWMD water quality experts have analyzed these springs, lakes, and streams within their district boundaries and 

found these waters to be healthy. A federal bureaucracy in Washington, DC would promulgate and apply regional 

standards for these same waters and declare these waters impaired. Again, this conflict highlights that the proposed 

NNC standards simply do not work. 

[41] SJRWMD, Status & Trends, supra. 

[42] Id at 8. 

[43] The analysis provided in the chart utilized FDEP's online analysis of surface water compliance with EPA instream 

protective values available at http://www.dep.state.tl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm. 

Comment ID 1431-1.001.045 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

We require a technically sound basis for numeric nutrient criteria in Florida that takes into account the diversity of our 

water resources and criteria that are based on demonstrated sound scientific relationships between water quality and 

biological response. 

Comment ID 1443-1.001.003 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

In South Carolina, our evaluation of the effects of nutrients on specific waterbody types has allowed us to make specific 

conclusions regarding our waters. First and foremost, determining how much of a specific nutrient is the right amount 

for a waterbody or waterbody type should be made on as much site-specific data and information as can be gathered 

regarding the entire system and the multiple influences of the surrounding riparian area. The relationship between 

nutrient concentrations and adverse impacts on aquatic life is extremely difficult to ascertain and not always a direct 

one. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2234
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1464-1.001.004 

Author Name: Ettinger A. 

Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. 

Second, while there must be a "sound scientific rationale" for water quality standards (40 CFR § 131.11(a)), standards
 

for pollutants must be developed even when a simple and direct relationship between pollutant concentrations and
 

biological endpoints cannot be set forth with mathematical certainty. Most present water quality standards were
 

developed by killing organisms in a laboratory, although no one claims that there is a simple relationship between any
 

given pollutant concentration level that will kill test organisms in a laboratory and the concentration of the pollutant that
 

will impair water bodies. Outside the laboratory, there are always complicating factors that prevent a simple stressor-


response relationship. To protect the biological integrity of the nation's waters, using reasonable estimates combined
 

with various safety factors is unavoidable. In cases in which circumstances have been demonstrated to deviate from the
 

norm, development of site-specific standards is possible.
 

EPA must consider the problem of drawing relationships between nitrogen and phosphorus levels and water body
 

health in light of the fact that many of our nation's waters, including Florida waters, now have levels of nitrogen and
 

phosphorus that are far in excess of natural levels shown by sediment cores. Few real reference waters remain. Thus,
 

the best that can be done is to consider nitrogen and phosphorus levels in water bodies that are reasonably believed
 

not to be seriously affected by nitrogen or phosphorus pollution, and then extrapolate estimates of the levels of nitrogen
 

and phosphorus that will protect aquatic surface waters, including sensitive species that remain.
 

Drawing reasonable "lines" based on past practice and experience is both proper and a very common regulatory
 

function. Administrative agency regulatory numerical standards are lawfully established if they are "within a zone of
 

reasonableness." Hercules Inc. v. EPA, 598 F.2d 91, 107-08 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a reference to the court case Reynolds Metal Co. v. United
 

States EPA, 760 F.2d 549, 558 (4th Cir. 1985). See original comment letter.
 

See also, Reynolds Metal Co. v. United States EPA, 760 F.2d 549, 558 (4th Cir. 1985) (upholding EPA numerical
 

standard).
 

Comment ID 1464-1.001.009 

Author Name: Ettinger A. 

Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. 

Also, inorganic nitrogen should be specifically addressed. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2235
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.011 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

1. Numeric nutrient criteria are not necessary to protect water quality. 

As noted by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), in other contexts EPA has not found numeric nutrient criteria to be 

necessary to protect water quality: 

[T]he way in which EPA used results from mechanistic models to develop nutrient load reduction goals for the Gulf of 

Mexico (Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task force, 2008), and the way in which it is currently 

using mechanistic models for nutrient and sediment TMDLs for Chesapeake Bay, does not involve development or use 

of numeric nutrient criteria. The reason is that these mechanistic models (Scavia et al., 2004; Cerco and Noel, 2004) 

are load-response models, not empirical stressor-response models, and hence they obviate the need for numeric 

nutrient criteria because they directly link nutrient loads to response variables that represent water quality impairments 

(e.g., dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll, water clarity and acreage of submerged aquatic vegetation). 

1-8-10 Draft Science Advisory Board (SAB) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee Advisory Report (hereinafter 

Draft SAB Report), at 5 (emphasis added). [1] 

[1] SAB Report underwent SAB quality review on March 24, 2010, and received support with a few editorial comments. 

However, the final report has not yet been issued. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.019 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

D. EPA's Proposals Do Not Follow EPA Guidance or SAB Recommendations. 

1. EPA's proposed criteria fail to follow EPA technical and policy guidance. 

EPA has issued a variety of guidance documents relating to the development of numeric nutrient criteria. Technical 

guidance documents include EPA's 1985 Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the 

Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Use (USEPA 1985) (hereinafter National Guidelines), the Nutrient Criteria 

Technical Guidance Manual - Rivers and Streams (USEPA 2000) (hereinafter Rivers and Streams Technical Guidance 

Manual), and the Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual - Lakes and Reservoirs (USEPA 2000) (hereinafter 

Lakes and Reservoirs Technical Guidance Manual). More recently, EPA has been developing a guidance called 

Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation (draft 2009), which is undergoing review by EPA's Science 

Advisory Board. In addition, in 2001 and 2003, EPA published recommended water quality criteria for nutrients based 

on an ecoregion approach under section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act. See 66 Fed. Reg. 1671 (Jan. 9, 2001); 68 Fed. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2236
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Reg. 557 (Jan. 6, 2003). 

EPA also has issued various policy documents, including the National Strategy for the Development of Regional 

Nutrient Criteria (USEPA June 1998) (noticed in the Federal Register on June 25, 1998 at 63 Fed. Reg. 34648) and the 

2001 memorandum from Geoffrey Grubbs to states on the Development and Adoption of Nutrient Criteria into Water 

Quality Standards (hereinafter Grubbs 2001). 

Although EPA has developed recommended nutrient criteria under section 304(a), EPA has made it clear that its criteria 

are merely a starting point and states should use EPA's technical guidance to develop water body specific criteria. In 

fact, nutrient criteria that fully reflect localized conditions and protect specific designated uses, using the process 

outlined in the technical guidance manuals, are preferred: 

EPA strongly encourages states, territories and authorized tribes to refine these recommendations based on the key 

elements of nutrient criteria development (historical information, reference conditions, models, consideration of 

downstream effects, and expert judgment) discussed in EPA's published Technical Guidance Manuals (Lakes and 

Reservoirs: EPA-822-B00-001; Rivers and Streams: EPA-822-B-00- 002). EPA recognizes that states and authorized 

tribes have several options available to them and recommends the following approaches, in order of preference: (1) 

Wherever possible, develop nutrient criteria that fully reflect localized conditions and protect specific designated uses 

using the process described in EPA's Technical Guidance Manuals for nutrient criteria development. Such criteria may 

be expressed either as numeric criteria or as procedures to translate a state or tribal narrative criterion into a quantified 

endpoint in state or tribal water quality standards. 

Grubbs 2001, at 15. See also 68 Fed. Reg. at 558 (It is not mandatory or expected that the reference condition so 

derived [using the 75th percentile of all reference data] be translated directly into a criterion). 

EPA's National Guidelines establish the threshold principles that all aquatic water quality criteria must meet. First, the 

purpose of criteria is to protect aquatic organisms and their uses from unacceptable effects. See National Guidelines, at 

vi. "Criteria should attempt to provide a reasonable and adequate amount of protection with only a small possibility of 

considerable overprotection or underprotection." National Guidelines, at 5. Proper criteria derivation requires the 

establishment of a cause-and-effect relationship to ensure that regulation of the pollutant is necessary and will produce 

the desired effect. National Guidelines at 5- 16, 21. Thus, "[t]he concentrations, durations, and frequencies specified in 

criteria are based on biological, ecological, and toxicological data, and are designed to protect aquatic organisms and 

their uses from unacceptable effects." Id. at 16. To develop such criteria, adequate data must be available or the criteria 

should not be developed. Id. at 5-6. Specifically, there must be adequate data on pollutant levels that cause an 

unacceptable adverse effect on any of the specified biological measurements. Id. at 39. For materials that have a 

threshold effect, the threshold of unacceptable effect must be determined. Id. at 8. In addition, "[c]riterion must be used 

in a manner that is consistent with the way in which they were derived...." National Guidelines, at 7. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.021 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2237
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

2. EPA's proposed criteria fail to follow SAB recommendations. 

EPA's own SAB highlights these general concerns with EPA's approach to nutrient criteria in its draft review of EPA's 

Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation (draft EPA 2009). Specifically: "The Committee emphasizes that 

understanding the causative link between nutrient levels and impairment is necessary in order to assure that managing 

for particular nutrient levels will lead to desired outcomes." Draft SAB Report, at 4. The SAB elaborated as follows: 

Without a mechanistic understanding and a clear causative link between nutrient levels and impairment, there is no 

assurance that managing for particular nutrient levels will lead to the desired outcome. There are numerous empirical 

examples where a given nutrient level is associated with a wide range of response values due to the influence of 

habitat, light levels, grazer populations and other factors. If the numeric criteria are not based upon well-established 

causative relationships, the scientific basis of the water quality standards will be seriously undermined. 

Id. 

While the guidance that the SAB currently is reviewing focuses on stressor-response models, the concerns expressed 

by the SAB regarding the need to establish cause-and-effect apply equally to the reference approach to establishing 

water quality standards. The SAB states that the most scientifically defensible strategy for managing nutrients within the 

range of uncertainty is to verify a biological response prior to taking a management action. The SAB further notes that 

these risk-based linkages are not addressed in either the Guidance or EPA's Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance 

documents for Rivers and Streams (2000), Lakes and Reservoirs (2000), and Estuaries (2001). Draft 2010 SAB, at 6. 

With respect to water quality models, the SAB stresses that site-specific data must be used as inputs for the models to 

be scientifically defensible: "It is possible to use these water quality models to describe exposure (in terms of ambient 

nutrient concentrations) but in the absence of empirical data, this would not be scientifically defensible." Id. at 18. 

Models must adequately reflect the great variety of site-specific conditions: "Given the many factors that affect streams 

and rivers, system-specific analysis really provides an assessment of whether altering nutrient concentrations would 

have the desired effect on the biotic communities present." Id. at 20. If site-specific conditions are not taken into 

account, there is no assurance that criteria will protect designated uses: 

For criteria that meet EPA's stated goal of "protecting against environmental degradation by nutrients," the underlying 

causal models must be correct. Habitat condition is a crucial consideration in this regard (e.g., light [for example, 

canopy cover], hydrology, grazer abundance, velocity, sediment type) that is not adequately addressed in the 

Guidance. Thus, a major uncertainty inherent in the Guidance is accounting for factors that influence biological 

responses to nutrient inputs. Addressing this uncertainty requires adequately accounting for these factors in different 

types of waterbodies. 

Id. at 37. 

Unfortunately, the criteria proposed by EPA are state-wide criteria that are based on very broad classifications of lakes 

and flowing streams in the State of Florida and fail to take into account local conditions, cause-and-effect relationships, 

and threshold levels. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2238
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.030 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Second, any federal criteria must meet the requirements of EPA's water quality standards regulations. This means the 

criteria must be set at a level that is necessary to protect designated uses (40 C.F.R. 131.2), must be based on a 

"sound scientific rationale," (40 C.F.R. 131.11(a)), and must be developed using "scientifically defensible methods" (40 

C.F.R. 131.11(b)). Accordingly, for specific waterbodies, EPA must establish on a cause-and-effect relationship 

between the nutrient being controlled and the biological response that affects the designated use. In addition, for each 

waterbody, EPA must establish the threshold below which additional nutrient reductions will result in harm. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.031 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Third, EPA must not control of nutrients below natural background levels. Fourth, EPA must not base its criteria on 

inappropriate models. Fifth, criteria should apply only if the specific nutrient is affecting plant growth. 

Comment ID 1473-1.001.037 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

B. Recommended Alternative Approach to Address Nutrients Used in Food Production. 

"One size fits all" policies, such as that in the proposed rule, will disproportionately affect a large population while 

creating little extra environmental benefit. Targeted policies, such as current TMDLs in Florida with BMP 

implementation, and realistic water quality goals for phosphorus mines can achieve identical environmental goals with 

significantly less aggregate affects on agriculture, the economy and the food supply. 

The current proposed rule cannot be reconciled with USDS recommendations for food security with such blanket, far 

reaching regulations. We respectfully request EPA to reconsider the means to achieve water quality goals. We 

advocate smart and targeted policies to address water quality without placing the economic burden on Florida farmers 

and industries which accompany farming (e.g. mining, processing, transportation, etc.). Such smart and well targeted 

policies can achieve environmental and food security goals, and can support both USDS and EPA goals. 

To control nutrient loss from agricultural operations, we support the use of a scientific and peerreviewed set of fertilizer 

BMPs known as 4R nutrient stewardship. The 4R nutrient stewardship concept was developed as a result of a 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2239
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

collaborative effort between The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), the Canadian
 

Fertilizer Institute and the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA). It promotes the use of the right fertilizer
 

source, applied at the right rate, right time and in the right place.
 

Right Source: Match the fertilizer source and product to crop need and soil properties.
 

Right Rate: Match the amount of fertilizer applied to the crop needs. Utilize soil testing, plant analysis, realistic yield
 

goals, nutrient uptake budgets, fertilizer applicator calibration, variable rate technology and accurate record keeping.
 

Right Time: Make nutrients available when the crop needs them. Nutrients are used most efficiently when their
 

availability is synchronized with crop demand.
 

Right Place: Apply nutrients where crops can use them. Crop, cropping system and soil properties dictate the most
 

appropriate method of application.
 

The application of these scientific principles may differ widely depending on the specific cropping system under
 

consideration. Each component of 4R nutrient stewardship is characterized in different ways to optimize productivity
 

and minimize environmental impairment. This approach, when paired with site-specific conservation practices, can
 

represent a holistic way for agricultural producers to limit nutrients losses while optimizing productivity.
 

In addition to being supported by TFI, IPNI, CFI and IFA, 4R nutrient stewardship has been endorsed by other
 

agricultural stakeholders, including the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials and the Conservation
 

Technology Information Center. The 4R nutrient stewardship concept was also accepted by the U.S. Department of
 

Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service for placement within its revised national 590 standard for
 

nutrient management.
 

The 4R program is consistent with Florida's watershed approach to water quality management. The Florida Watershed
 

Restoration Act (FWRA) (403.067 F.S.) provides the statutory authority to address point and nonpoint source pollution.
 

FDEP and Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) have created TMDLs for the many
 

watersheds in Florida and have established a method to assess their efficacy. The TMDLs account for seasonal
 

variation, include a margin of safety, and can be based on water quality goals not yet attained to strive for cleaner
 

waters. TMDL implementation employs farmers to voluntarily implement BMPs that are crop and region specific. This
 

achieves maximum pollutant reduction while taking into account environmental, economic and technological feasibility.
 

If voluntary BMPs are still not achieving water quality goals, FDEP and FDACS can implement mandatory BMPs ­

ensuring such pollutants are reduced. BMPs are based on regional agricultural practices and they can be further refined
 

to be site-specific by utilizing technical advisors to assess and implement a management plan.
 

A plan that engages stakeholders to implement 4R nutrient stewardship will result in healthy aquatic ecosystems such
 

as that in Tampa Bay and will avoid imposing negative consequences on agriculture, which may otherwise come as a
 

result of the current proposed rule. Furthermore, such restrictions on nutrients may have unintended consequences
 

such as reducing carbon sequestration (from less productive fields) and inefficient irrigation (from less water use
 

efficiency by the plant), a formidable issue in the face of climate change.
 

We request EPA to consider the efficacy of the 4R system in conjunction with site-specific parameters. As FDEP and
 

FDACS have already endorsed and codified such practices, water quality attainment can be achieved quickly without
 

alarming stakeholders. The FWRA allows farmers to utilize a comprehensive nutrient management plan that considers
 

economic and environmental feasibility with the ability to amend in case it fails to produce results. A "one size fits all"
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2240
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

agricultural mandate to limit nutrient use without considering site-specific parameters, nutrient synergies, and the 

economic viability of farming in Florida will force agriculture out of Florida while having minimal beneficial effects for the 

environment. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.003 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

EPA's Rivers and Streams Technical Guidance Manual discusses three general approaches for criteria setting: (1) 

identification of reference reaches for each stream class based on best professional judgment or percentile selections 

of data plotted as frequency distributions, (2) use of predictive relationships (e.g., trophic state classifications, models, 

biocriteria), and (3) application and/or modification of established nutrient/algal thresholds (e.g., nutrient concentration 

thresholds or algal limits from published literature). Rivers and Streams Technical Guidance Manual, at 13. 

Whatever approach is used, however, the Rivers and Streams Technical Guidance Manual makes it clear that 

establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between nutrients and an adverse response is critical: 

When evaluating the relationships among nutrients and algal response within stream systems, it is important to first 

understand which nutrient is limiting. Once the limiting nutrient is defined, critical nutrient concentrations can be 

specified and nutrient and algal biomass relationships can be examined to identify potential criteria to avoid nuisance 

algal levels. 

Rivers and Streams Technical Guidance Manual, at 13. 

EPA's proposed nutrient criteria for Florida lakes and flowing waters employ the first two approaches for the 

development of various standards: the stressor-response approach (the use of predictive relationships) and the 

reference approach. However, as discussed below, due to lack of data, lack of a cause-and-effect relationship between 

nutrient levels and impacts on designated uses, the failure to establish threshold nutrient levels for these water bodies, 

and the failure to apply the criteria in the manner in which they were developed, these approaches have not followed 

EPA guidance and have not resulted in the development of scientifically defensible criteria. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.014 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

H. Criteria Application. 

In addition to the specific comments associated with the individual proposed lake, stream, spring 

and canal criteria, there are a series of cross cutting issues that EPA must address to ensure that 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2241
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

the criteria are scientifically defensible and do not unnecessarily regulate nutrients. These 

changes are necessary because EPA’s approach to nutrient regulation did not confirm that the 

selected numeric nutrient values are associated with a threshold for impairment in many 

instances. Altering the application of the proposed standards to reflect these concerns will ensure 

that nutrient restrictions are only imposed in appropriate cases. 

1. Basing criteria derivation on assumed impairments not acceptable. 

EPA has stated that the purpose of nutrient regulation is to avoid excessive plant growth that 

could cause impairment to the ecology. In all situations involving use of a reference waters 

approach there was no demonstration that the selected nutrient target was associated with 

excessive plant growth or any adverse ecological shift. For streams, EPA did not even set a 

target plant growth level that, if exceeded, constituted impairment. Even in the proposal related 

to springs, EPA did not identify what precisely is the indicator of impairment. For both lakes 

and canals, a plant growth level was identified but EPA did not require that the impairment level 

be exceeded before triggering the application of the nutrient objectives. For all waters, EPA has 

recommended that both nitrogen and phosphorus be regulated, even in waters when nitrogen is 

not expected to be limiting plant growth. To be scientifically defensible, the following changes 

to the rule must occur: 

o Impairment thresholds representing a level of plant growth 

that should not be exceeded must be identified; 

o Exceedance of the impairment threshold must be confirmed 

before nutrient reduction may be required; 

o Where an impairment threshold is exceeded, the State must 

be granted the authority to determine which nutrient should 

be regulated to achieve compliance with the impairment 

threshold. 

2. Once in three-year exceedance is not consistent with the method for 

criteria derivation (median- long term average) and will require 

compliance at the 67th percentile rather than 50th percentile. 

EPA’s analysis has indicated that so long as applicable objective (causal and response) are met 

on a long-term annual average basis, the waterbody in question should be protected from adverse 

impacts. EPA has acknowledged that year-to-year variation around this average condition is not 

expected to adversely alter lake or stream ecology. However, EPA has required that exceedances 

of the long-term objectives not occur more frequently than once on three years. Thus, 

exceedances may occur no more frequently than 33 percent of the time and, therefore, 

compliance with the long-term average is mandated to occur 67 percent of the time rather than 

50 percent of the time. Since the proposal would require separate compliance with each 

applicable nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorophyll a criterion, the actually return frequency for 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2242
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

plant growth above EPA’s recommended safe levels will occur far less frequently than once in 

three years. This approach misapplies the database that was used to derive the criteria, contrary 

to the National Guidelines. If the chlorophyll a objectives were derived based on long-term 

annual average conditions, a situation that occurs 50 percent of the time, then prohibiting 

exceedances from occurring no more frequently than 67 percent of the time, or greater, adds 

further stringency nowhere justified by EPA’s analysis. To be consistent with the underlying 

database and how the criteria were derived, compliance with the applicable response variable 

should only be required on average. 

3. The application of criteria must match how the criteria database was 

developed. 

EPA’s proposed criteria were based on a sampling database that reflects the typical condition in 

a waterbody. For lakes, it is expected that the annual average values used in EPA’s assessment 

are based on the average of several mid-lake/open-water samples near the surface. These values 

were not sampled at worst case locations (e.g., backwaters, skimmed from the surface, etc.) 

because that would not have been reflective of the overall trophic state of the waters. Moreover, 

the chlorophyll a/nutrient concentration relationship was not based on the results of a single area 

in a lake because of the numerous physical factors that could influence plant growth at a 

particular location. The evaluation of data represented conditions that were completely mixed. 

However, EPA is seeking to apply the proposed criteria in a manner that mandates compliance is 

achieved in all areas of a waterbody, not in the waterbody as a whole. This is improper because 

the criteria derivation was not based on the evaluation of sampling information from individual 

areas of a lake or stream but only from representative locations of the overall waterbody. 

Therefore, the proposed rule needs to be corrected to specify that the various criteria should be 

compared to areas of a waterbody that are representative of average conditions throughout the 

waterbody. 

EPA also has indicated that the criteria must be applied consistent with State mixing zone rules, 

even though the values are not representative of any mixing zone conditions. In fact, nutrient 

impacts, like biological oxygen demand impacts, do not manifest themselves in mixing zones 

since the time frame for impacts to occur is insufficient. Therefore, EPA must clarify that the 

objectives only apply in waters outside of mixing zones where the nutrient concentrations are 

fully mixed with the surrounding waters and sufficient time has passed for the nutrient 

concentration to stimulate excessive plant growth. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.029 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

EPA cannot show that its proposed numeric criteria are "necessary to protect [designated] uses" because it cannot 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2243
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

even demonstrate what effect its proposed criteria will have on a designated use. Absent a showing of a cause-andeffect relationship between the proposed criteria and a biological response in the water body, EPA also cannot 

demonstrate that its proposed numeric criteria are based on "sound scientific rationale" or "scientifically defensible 

methods." 

In fact, as discussed above, because in many cases EPA has not identified the threshold level of nutrients required by a 

water body, EPA cannot even demonstrate that its proposed nutrient standards will have a beneficial effect on 

designated uses. Unlike standards for toxic chemicals, it cannot be assumed that increasingly stringent nutrient criteria 

will produce water quality improvements. There is a threshold at which more stringent nutrient criteria will actually harm 

water quality because nutrients are essential to a healthy aquatic ecosystem. In order to develop scientifically 

defensible nutrient criteria for Florida, EPA must first identify the threshold level of nutrients needed to support the 

designated use of each water body, using site-specific data. The Agency has not done so. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.033 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

C. EPA's Proposals Do Not Follow SAB Recommendations. 

EPA's own SAB highlights these general concerns with EPA's approach to nutrient criteria in its draft review of EPA's 

Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation. Specifically: "The Committee emphasizes that understanding the 

causative link between nutrient levels and impairment is necessary in order to assure that managing for particular 

nutrient levels will lead to desired outcomes." SAB Report, at 4. The SAB elaborated as follows: 

Without a mechanistic understanding and a clear causative link between nutrient levels and impairment, there is no 

assurance that managing for particular nutrient levels will lead to the desired outcome. There are numerous empirical 

examples where a given nutrient level is associated with a wide range of response values due to the influence of 

habitat, light levels, grazer populations and other factors. If the numeric criteria are not based upon well-established 

causative relationships, the scientific basis of the water quality standards will be seriously undermined. 

Id. at 6. 

While the guidance that the SAB currently is reviewing focuses on stressor-response models, the concerns expressed 

by the SAB regarding the need to establish cause-and-effect apply equally to the reference approach to establishing 

water quality standards. The SAB states that the most scientifically defensible strategy for managing nutrients within the 

range of uncertainty is to verify a biological response prior to taking a management action. The SAB further notes that 

these risk-based linkages are not addressed in either the Guidance or EPA's Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance 

documents for Rivers and Streams (2000), Lakes and Reservoirs (2000), and Estuaries (2001). SAB Report, at 7. 

With respect to water quality models, the SAB stresses that site-specific data must be used as inputs for the models to 

be scientifically defensible: "It is possible to use these water quality models to describe exposure (in terms of ambient 

nutrient concentrations) but in the absence of empirical data, this would not be scientifically defensible." Id. at 18. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2244
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Models must adequately reflect the great variety of site-specific conditions: "Given the many factors that affect streams 

and rivers, system-specific analysis really provides an assessment of whether altering nutrient concentrations would 

have the desired effect on the biotic communities present." Id. at 20. If site-specific conditions are not taken into 

account, there is no assurance that criteria will protect designated uses: 

For criteria that meet EPA's stated goal of "protecting against environmental degradation by nutrients," the underlying 

causal models must be correct. Habitat condition is a crucial consideration in this regard (e.g., light [for example, 

canopy cover], hydrology, grazer abundance, velocity, sediment type) that is not adequately addressed in the 

Guidance. Thus, a major uncertainty inherent in the Guidance is accounting for factors that influence biological 

responses to nutrient inputs. Addressing this uncertainty requires adequately accounting for these factors in different 

types of waterbodies. 

Id. at 37. 

Unfortunately, the criteria proposed by EPA are state-wide criteria that are based on very broad classifications of lakes 

and flowing streams in the State of Florida and fail to take into account local conditions, cause-and-effect relationships, 

and threshold levels. 

EPA has signed a consent decree agreeing to finalize this rulemaking by October 15, 2010, to settle a claim against it 

by the Florida Wildlife Federation, and others (Northern District of Florida, Case No. 4:080cv-00324-RH-WCS). EPA 

also has asked Science Advisory Board (SAB) to review the Agency's draft Technical Guidance on Empirical 

Approaches for Numerical Nutrient Criteria Development. The SAB's final report was issued on April 27. 2010. By 

rushing through this rulemaking, EPA is not taking the time to consider the advice of its own panel of experts that it has 

convened on developing nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.041 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Second, any federal criteria must meet the requirements of EPA's water quality standards regulations. This means the 

criteria must be set at a level that is necessary to protect designated uses (40 C.F.R. 131.2), must be based on a 

"sound scientific rationale," (40 C.F.R. 131.11(a)), and must be developed using "scientifically defensible methods" (40 

C.F.R. 131.11(b)). Accordingly, for specific waterbodies, EPA must establish on a cause-and-effect relationship 

between the nutrient being controlled and the biological response that affects the designated use. In addition, for each 

waterbody, EPA must establish the threshold below which additional nutrient reductions will result in harm. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.042 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2245
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Third, EPA must not control nutrients below natural background levels. Fourth, EPA must not base its criteria on 

inappropriate models. Fifth, criteria should apply only if the specific nutrient is affecting plant growth. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.046 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

As discussed above, EPA can meet these requirements by refining its proposed criteria for lakes, modifying the 

application of its proposed criteria for springs and clear streams, and by setting aside its criteria for streams and canals 

while allowing the State to continue implementing its narrative criteria on a site-specific basis. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.048 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Finally, as discussed below, TFI recommends a best management practices approach to addressing nutrients used in 

food production. 

B. Recommended Alternative Approach to Address Nutrients Used in Food Production. 

"One size fits all" policies, such as that in the proposed rule, will disproportionately affect a large population while 

creating little extra environmental benefit. Targeted policies, such as current TMDLs in Florida with BMP 

implementation, and realistic water quality goals for phosphorus mines can achieve identical environmental goals with 

significantly less aggregate affects on agriculture, the economy and the food supply. 

The NPRM cannot be reconciled with USDS recommendations for food security. TFI respectfully requests EPA to 

reconsider the means to achieve water quality goals. TFI advocates smart and targeted policies to address water 

quality without placing the economic burden on Florida farmers and industries which accompany farming (e.g. mining, 

processing, transportation, etc.). Such smart and well targeted policies can achieve environmental and food security 

goals, and can support both USDS and EPA goals. 

To control nutrient loss from agricultural operations, TFI, along with the fertilizer industry organizations that comprise its 

membership, promotes the use of a scientific and peer-reviewed set of fertilizer BMPs known as 4R nutrient 

stewardship. The 4R nutrient stewardship concept was developed as a result of a collaborative effort between TFI, the 

International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), the Canadian Fertilizer Institute and the International Fertilizer Industry 

Association (IFA). It promotes the use of the right fertilizer source, applied at the right rate, right time and in the right 

place. 

Right Source: Match the fertilizer source and product to crop need and soil properties. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2246
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Right Rate: Match the amount of fertilizer applied to the crop needs. Utilize soil testing, plant analysis, realistic yield 

goals, nutrient uptake budgets, fertilizer applicator calibration, variable rate technology and accurate record keeping. 

Right Time: Make nutrients available when the crop needs them. Nutrients are used most efficiently when their 

availability is synchronized with crop demand. 

Right Place: Apply nutrients where crops can use them. Crop, cropping system and soil properties dictate the most 

appropriate method of application. 

The application of these scientific principles may differ widely depending on the specific cropping system under 

consideration. Each component of 4R nutrient stewardship is characterized in different ways to optimize productivity 

and minimize environmental impairment. This approach, when paired with site-specific conservation practices, can 

represent a holistic way for agricultural producers to limit nutrients losses while optimizing productivity. 

In addition to being supported by TFI, IPNI, CFI and IFA, 4R nutrient stewardship has been endorsed by other 

agricultural stakeholders, including the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials and the Conservation 

Technology Information Center. The 4R nutrient stewardship concept was also accepted by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service for placement within its revised national 590 standard for nutrient 

management. 

The 4R program is consistent with Florida's watershed approach to water quality management. The Florida Watershed 

Restoration Act (Fla. Stat. §403.067) provides the statutory authority to address point and nonpoint source pollution. 

FDEP and FDACS have created TMDLs for the many watersheds in Florida and have established a method to assess 

their efficacy. The TMDLs account for seasonal variation, include a margin of safety, and can be based on water quality 

goals not yet attained to strive for cleaner waters. TMDL implementation employs farmers to voluntarily implement 

BMPs that are crop and region specific. This achieves maximum pollutant reduction while taking into account 

environmental, economic and technological feasibility. If voluntary BMPs are still not achieving water quality goals, 

FDEP and FDACS can implement mandatory BMPs - ensuring such pollutants are reduced. BMPs are based on 

regional agricultural practices and they can be further refined to be site-specific by utilizing technical advisors to assess 

and implement a management plan. 

A plan that engages stakeholders to implement 4R nutrient stewardship will result in healthy aquatic ecosystems such 

as that in Tampa Bay and will avoid imposing negative consequences on agriculture, which may otherwise come as a 

result of the current proposed rule. Furthermore, such restrictions on nutrients may have unintended consequences 

such as reducing carbon sequestration (from less productive fields) and inefficient irrigation (from less water use 

efficiency by the plant), a formidable issue in the face of climate change. 

TFI requests EPA to consider the efficacy of the 4R system in conjunction with site-specific parameters. As FDEP and 

FDACS have already endorsed and codified such practices, water quality attainment can be achieved quickly without 

alarming stakeholders. The FWRA allows farmers to utilize a comprehensive nutrient management plan that considers 

economic and environmental feasibility with the ability to amend in case it fails to produce results. A "one size fits all" 

agricultural mandate to limit nutrient use without considering site-specific parameters, nutrient synergies, and the 

economic viability of farming in Florida will force agriculture out of Florida while having minimal beneficial effects for the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2247
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

environment. 

Comment ID 1474-2.001.011 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Also, EPA did not have: 

• Any documents which confirm that "long term phosphorus removal" does not occur in fresh waters (1) generally and/or 

(2) specifically for Florida waters. (Item #8) 

It is generally accepted that there is natural phosphorus uptake within an aquatic stream environment. All of EPA's 

models and calculations should account for this uptake for a more realistic simulation of conditions within Florida's lakes 

and rivers. 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.002 

Author Name: Rudd F. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

While increased levels of nutrients can cause impairment to a water body, nutrients are essential for the biological 

health and productivity of Florida's waters. The establishment of numeric nutrient criteria that fails to take into account 

site specific factors may result in criteria that lack adequate scientific support and cause unintended environmental and 

economic consequences. 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.003 

Author Name: Rudd F. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

Florida currently implements a narrative nutrient criterion designed to achieve a balance of adequate nutrients to 

sustain aquatic life without allowing excess nutrients that will alter the aquatic ecosystem. Florida's narrative nutrient 

criterion has been carefully crafted in a manner which takes into account the unique characteristic of Florida's many 

thousands of rivers, streams, lakes, and canals. 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.009 

Author Name: Rudd F. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2248
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

In contrast, EPA's January 2010 proposal fails to take into account the unique characteristic of Florida's many 

thousands of rivers, streams, lakes, and canals; fails to incorporate and may undermine Florida's science based TMDL 

program; and has the potential for adversely affecting the numerous regulatory programs administered by DEP, WMD's, 

and local programs. 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.024 

Author Name: Rudd F. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

- EPA's Science Advisory Board informed EPA that nutrient standards must be set at the threshold above which 

impairment is expected to occur. Several of the proposed standards are not based on any documented biological 

impairment threshold. The range of conditions occurring in non-impaired waters does not demonstrate what the 

impairment threshold is. EPA's analysis failed to show that higher levels would cause violation of narrative criteria or 

otherwise impair uses. EPA continues to use "change point" analyses to select criteria values even though the SAB 

stated that this method does not predict the biological impairment threshold. 

Comment ID 1480-1.001.005 

Author Name: Wong E. 

Organization: City of Northport 

Please consider my additional comments below: 1. It is important to correlate nutrient concentrations with the biological 

health of the water body and the specific uses of that water body. I agree with FDEP's recommendation to develop 

cause/effect relationships between nutrients and valued ecological attributes, and to establish nutrient criteria that 

ensure that the designated uses of Florida's waters are maintained. This FDEP approach appears to be forgotten in the 

EPA's proposed draft NNC rule. 

Comment ID 1480-1.001.006 

Author Name: Wong E. 

Organization: City of Northport 

2. The idea of "one size fits all" numeric nutrient criteria is not appropriate for every water body within each of the 

classes Lakes, Streams, Springs and Canals. Not all waterbodies within each of these classes are made equal in 

dimensions, land use contributions and designated uses vary greatly. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2249
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1480-1.001.015 

Author Name: Wong E. 

Organization: City of Northport 

10. Does the proposed TN fully take into account naturally occurring nitrogen levels and the various levels which may 

be affected by the seasons? 

Comment ID 1482-1.001.004 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

I. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria Have Been Appropriately Developed 

A Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria are not One Size Fits Ail but Are 

Sufficientlv Specific 

Despite claims that these criteria are one size-fits-all, they are anything but. All existing Florida water quality standards 

are divided into just two types of waterbodies: fresh and marine. EPA's proposed criteria will not only be divided into 

fresh and marine, but the fresh waterbodies are further divided into 5 ecoregions by 6 sub-types including 3 separate 

lakes criteria, rivers, springs, and canals. Since water quality standards are used for screening and are therefore not 

meant to be waterbody-specific, the expensive and time-consuming process of developing a waterbody-specific "Total 

Maximum Daily Load" pollution limit is only pursued later - if warranted by a waterbody failing to meet its water quality 

standards. 

Comment ID 1483-1.001.002 

Author Name: McCrea D. 

Organization: Pinellas County 

I. Adaptive Management 

In the past two of decades, there has been a burgeoning movement to develop adaptive management techniques in 

environmental law. Numerous scholars have recognized the complexities of environmental systems. These scholars 

have noted that various inputs that affect such systems, coupled with the convoluted relationships between these 

inputs, make these systems at the very least difficult to properly model on front end. Therefore, many environmental 

practitioners have recommended implementing adaptive management techniques in developing regulations for these 

systems. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2250
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Adaptive management has been defined as requiring the "institutionalization of monitoring adjustment frameworks that 

allow incremental policy and decision adjustments at the 'back-end,' where performance results can be evaluated and 

the new information can be fed back into the ongoing regulatory process.[1] At its core, adaptive management is an 

incremental decisionmaking process that is built around the casual relationships that result from observed changes 

derived from a system's inputs.[2] The National Research Council branch of the National Academy of Sciences 

describes how adaptive management differs from 'front-end' prescriptive regulation: 

After implementation of specific restoration activities and procedures, the status of the ecosystem is regularly and 

systematically reassessed and described ... The evaluation process feeds directly into adaptive management by 

informing the implementation team and leading to testing of management hypotheses, new simulations, and proposals 

for adjustments in management experiments or development of wholly new experiments of management strategies.[3] 

Two commentators suggest in their review of regulatory innovations, that adaptive decisionnlaking allows agencies to 

learn about and respond to changing conditions at the "backend" rather than loading all the decisionmaking at the 

"front-end," when the effects of decisions and of other changing conditions are not yet known.[4] Adaptive management 

and even at a more basic level adaptation are the core principles of almost all business models and are the seminal trait 

for successful species and a successful environment. Therefore, Pinellas County asserts that adaptive management is 

a better theory to employ when an agency seeks to tackle and regulate complex ecosystems. [5] 

Unfortunately, many agencies have shown resistance to utilizing adaptive management techniques to create policy and 

law. For instance, agencies have not often been rewarded for flexibility, openness, and their willingness to experiment, 

monitor, and adapt.[6] There are three deterrents that often dissuade agencies from implementing adaptive 

management into their decisionmaking policies: legislatures, the public, and the courts. As one commentator has 

recognized: "It is little wonder that, having to operate in an atmosphere in which each decision involves so much 'frontend' preparation designed largely in anticipation of the onslaught of the public's 'participation' and judges' 'hard looks,' 

many agencies display an aversion to adaptation."[7] The General Accounting Office reported that even when states 

have attempted to implement innovative and adaptive environmental regulation that these states have faced significant 

obstacles at the federal level because of a "cultural resistance among many in [the EPA] toward alternative 

approaches.. . . "[8] 

Seemingly, out of aversion, out of fear, and/or out of an affiliation for the norm, agencies have consistently attempted to 

create laws that control regulation on the front-end. The agencies likely find it simpler and more economical to tackle 

the aforementioned three fronts all at once, rather than face these fronts constantly throughout the review periods 

suggested in adaptive management. 

[1] See J.B. Ruhl, Regulation By Adaptive Management-Is It Possible?, 7 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 21,30 (2005) 

[2] See Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (C.S. Holling ed., 1978) 

[3] See Committee on Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin, Bd. On Envtl. Studies & 

Toxicology, Div, on Earth & Life Studies, Nat'l Research Council, endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klarnath 

River Basin: Causes of Decline and Strategies for Recovery (2004). 

[4] See Sidney A Shapiro & Robert L. Glicksman, The Missing Perspective, Envtl. F. Mar./Apr. 2003 at 42. 

[5] See William H. Rodgers, Jr., Where Environmental Law and Biology Meet: Of Pandas' Thumbs, Statutory Sleepers, 

and Effective Law, 65 Colo. L. Rev. 25,37-38 (1993). 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2251
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

[6] See R. Edward Grumbine, Reflections on "What is Ecosystem Management?', 11 Conservation Biology 41,45 ( 

1997) 

[7] Supra note 1 at 36 

[8] U.S. Gen Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: Overcoming Obstacles to Innovative State Regulatory 

Programs 3 (2002), available at htt~://www.~ao.rlov/new.items/d02268 

Comment ID 1532-1.001.004 

Author Name: Stacey P. 

Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

The concept of satisfactory broad-based, single number criteria is refuted by the data, which show wide site-to-site 

variation that accurately describes the uniqueness of each waterbody. This varied, and desirable, feature of ecosystem 

diversity, counters the proposed outcome of low effort but successful nutrient management based on single number 

nutrient concentration criteria that could reasonably be applied to broad classes of waterbodies. Under application, this 

approach could actually reduce natural diversity, the very attribute we strive to protect. 

There appears to be no substitute for local waterbody and watershed planning to protect ecosystem integrity, and the 

use of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analyses and other site-specific management tools to restore conditions, 

when warranted. This dual approach has been successful in controlling many pollutants, including nutrients. While the 

Propose Rule has deemed these primary tools "...resource-intensive and timeconsuming site-specific data collection 

and analysis [approaches] to interpret nonnumeric narrative nutrient criteria..." that are "...insufficient to ensure 

protection of applicable designated uses", they are presently the only approaches with a proven record of success when 

applied on a site-specific basis. 

Before broad-scale applications of nutrient criteria should be applied, it must be demonstrated that they will be an 

improvement over current practice, and have the desired outcome. Expediency is no substitute for the accuracy that 

site-specific diligence provides, especially if efforts are misdirected. That outcome would be wasteful of time and 

money, and might effect changes in water quality, but not necessarily for the better, providing dubious water quality 

improvements in the long run. 

Additional information and scientific support are needed that demonstrate not only "best available science" but "good 

science" that affirms the utility of numeric criteria as a management tool. 

Comment ID 1532-1.001.006 

Author Name: Stacey P. 

Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

We recommend EPA look to the recent SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (SAB Committee) review of 

"Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation. " 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2252
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

While a final report has not been posted on the SAB website, the 8 January 2010 draft is near final and offers much 

sage advice on the development of nutrient criteria from empirical data using biological endpoints in stressor-response 

relationships. In their draft cover letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson the SAB Committee concludes, "The stressorresponse approach is a legitimate, scientifically-based method for developing numeric criteria if the approach is 

appropriately applied (i.e., not used in isolation, but as a part of a weight-of evidence approach)." Further, the 

Committee identifies among their key concerns, "...the uncertainty associated with estimated stressor-response 

relationships..." as problematic "...if this approach were used as a "stand alone" method because statistical associations 

do not prove cause and effect." 

Much of the Proposed Rule is based on statistical associations of cause and effect, and we would contend, that is the 

primary reason numeric criteria may fall short in its ability to reasonably protect water quality in an effective manner 

without risk of erroneous decision making and the consequent waste of scarce management resources. 

The SAB Committee's recommendation for a "weight of evidence" approach refines the development of numeric criteria 

by reducing uncertainty as "tiers" of increasingly sophisticated analyses are employed that account for complexities in 

stressor-response relationships quantify, and reduce extraneous sources of error. From an academic perspective, this 

has considerable merit, adding to the understanding of nutrient effects in aquatic ecosystems; however, in application, it 

may not lead to a satisfactory outcome to EPA's expediency objective since it would require fairly intensive data needs 

and understanding of nutrient processes that are presently not well understood. In our opinion, a weight-of-evidence 

protocol would ultimately lead back to a site-specific approach, such as a TMDL, as the only way to sufficiently minimize 

variability caused by geography and physical, chemical and biological attributes. These attributes are generally unique 

to individual waterbodies. 

If the scale of nutrient criteria application is broad, as EPA proposes, even a weight-ofevidence approach is not likely to 

reduce error to a point where management decisions would produce a certain, and favorable, outcome when applied to 

broad classes of waters. Striking a balance between the two - broad application and site specificity - is unlikely in the 

real world of diverse and unique ecosystems at the waterbody level. To do so would not only require considerable 

additional research and monitoring, but might ultimately gravitate to a site specific approach that satisfactorily reduces 

the risk of erroneous management decisions. Getting it right half or even three-quarters of the time is not an acceptable 

option. Nevertheless, Connecticut is very receptive to exploring these approaches, but recommends those analyses be 

completed prior to adopting numeric criteria that may prove to be counterproductive. 

Concerns over uncertainty and incumbent applicability in stressor-response relationships erode the utility of broadbased numeric nutrient criteria. 

These concerns are further exposed in the SAB Committee draft report as they note the need for: "1) establishing 

linkages among designated uses, measured responses, stressors, and measures of stressor; and 2) relating measures 

of responses directly to deleterious effects on designated uses." In the Proposed Rule for Florida, criteria are proposed 

but without certainty of outcome, either beneficial or detrimental to the environment. The relationship to attainment of 

designated uses is not strongly supported and, as further stated by the SAB Committee in one of their findings on 

reducing uncertainty, "Numeric nutrient criteria developed and implemented without consideration of system specific 

conditions (e.g., from a classification based on site types) can lead to management actions that may have negative 

social and economic and unintended environmental consequences without additional environmental protection." 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2253
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

This is certainly a position that we all want to avoid, and a responsibility the states must endure as stewards of the 

environment and public servants charged with the responsibility to use tax dollars entrusted to these efforts wisely and 

to the attainment of the highest and best environmental benefit. The risks associated with the Proposed Rule need to be 

better quantified so regulators and the public are assured that their efforts, and dollars, are not misdirected and there is 

reasonable certainty of a positive outcome. If that assurance cannot be provided, application of the Rule should be 

reconsidered. 

Within these greater concerns surrounding the structural and scientific bases of numeric nutrient criteria development, 

and its advisability as an effective management tool over more traditional site-specific approaches, there are concrete 

scientific concerns that remain unaddressed in both EPA guidance and in the Proposed Rule. 

These concerns comprise the essential scientific underpinnings of nutrient dynamics and their effect in the aquatic 

environment. Associated ecosystem structure and function, which have been described and supported by many 

decades of research and evaluation~ contradict the concept of broad-scale numeric nutrient criteria as a sole or even 

primary driver or arbiter of ecosystem health. These fundamental areas of concern have been frequently expressed in 

commentary by states, researchers and others over the past decade of nutrient criteria debate: 

Nutrients are not threshold pollutants. Single "threshold" nutrient concentrations applied to broad geographic areas or 

classes of systems suggests a commonality of response, assimilative capacity, human effect and biological status that 

does not appear to exist in the field. Consequently, successful application could diminish the diversity of ecosystems by 

creating a truncated distribution of conditions below an artificial and arbitrary criterion. 

Comment ID 1532-1.001.008 

Author Name: Stacey P. 

Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

Environmental responses are best related to nutrient loads, not concentrations. Virtually all guidance and reviews of 

nutrient criteria development expose the difficulties incumbent in the relationship between indicator responses and 

concentrations of nutrients in waterbodies. Concentrations change rapidly in biologically-active systems as productivity 

responds rapidly to changing physical and chemical conditions, and nutrients move in and out of aquatic, biological and 

sediment pools, disrupting relationships between chemical presence (concentrations) and indicator response. This is 

most clearly evident when nutrients become "limiting" and available forms are very low in concentration while 

organically bound forms, or response variables, may be contraindicative. Stressor-response relationships are subject to 

these types of error, especially when r2 values are low as they generally are in nutrient concentration and effect 

correlations. Mechanistic approaches that improve over empirical models may better account for dose-response 

relationships, and nutrient budgets as management tools, and are much more likely to identify water quality impairment, 

and viable means of control. In essence, TMDLs use a dose-response approach to manage towards endpoints of 

biological integrity, or even ambient concentration in the case of toxic pollutants, and provide a means for management 

more compatible with the science of nutrient dynamics and effects. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2254
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1532-1.001.013 

Author Name: Stacey P. 

Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

In sum: 

-The Proposed Rule proposes to use techniques that have proven inadequate to the task over the past decade since 

the Clean Water Action Plan required numeric nutrient criteria development. 

-Stronger scientific justification for "good science" principles, including the role of a QAPP and the peer review process 

should be included in the Proposed Rule and TSD. 

-The variety of physical, chemical and biological conditions exhibited among water bodies within a system class is not 

only desirable in a robust, diverse natural system, but precludes simplistic, single number criterion approaches that 

assume a concordance of condition that does not exist. 

-Effective criteria will need to consider the human presence and determine, on a site specific basis, the appropriate 

water quality goal that maintains biological integrity where conditions are .deemed healthy, but establishes realistic 

goals for management in cases where waterbodies and watersheds have been modified by human activity over time. 

-There should be no expectation that artificial systems can attain natural conditions and there should be no assumption 

that all natural conditions are identical. 

In conclusion, the Proposed Rule provides a wealth of information and statistical analysis for Florida's inland waters, but 

falls short in its answers to basic questions that define healthy vs. degraded systems along a relevant, and diverse, 

gradient. The rule needs to establish a way to distinguish between more enriched; yet still healthy or natural systems 

and those that are subject to excess, anthropogenic sources of nutrients and are, therefore, unhealthy: Given the 

uncertainty that cannot be accounted for in the proposed methodologies, we recommend that the proposed rule be 

withdrawn until basic premises of "good science" are established as called for in peer comments on the topic, as well as 

the recent SAB Committee report on empirical approaches. 

Finally, numeric criteria adopted into water quality standards can become very inflexible and unyielding to rational 

debate and new findings once under application. Adopted criteria would be difficult to retract, modify or except even 

with reasonable scientific documentation. Data requirements to refute broad numeric criteria, which themselves are 

based on limited data and understanding of the systems they will significantly alter, are equally onerous as those 

necessary to develop TMDLs or other, more valid, sitespecific management approaches in the first place. These are 

preferred over development of Use Attainability Analyses for every exception. 

Comment ID 1532-1.001.017 

Author Name: Stacey P. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2255
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 

Finally, the rule does not take into account the many anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic physical, chemical and 

biological factors that warrant adjustment to criteria, generally on a site-specific basis. 

Comment ID 1549.001.002 

Author Name: Gilkey D. 

Organization: Gilkey Organization 

1. The EPA's regional nutrient criteria ignore the variability of Florida's surface waters. I am concerned that even healthy 

water bodies may be deemed impaired and that nutrient levels possibly cannot be met based upon the criteria proposed 

by EPA. 

Comment ID 1550.001.002 

Author Name: Berchtold J. 

Organization: City of Lake Butler 

-EPA should not implement nutrient criteria limits without demonstrating a cause and effect relationship between the 

nutrients and surface water impairment. EPA should not implement nutrient criteria if it has not been proven that the 

limits themselves will not impair surface waters or be protective of designated uses. 

Comment ID 1556-1.001.003 

Author Name: Horenstein B. 

Organization: Tri-TAC 

1. Concern that the control of water column concentrations of nutrients through adoption of numeric nutrient standards 

will not result in implied beneficial use improvement 

Nutrient management is not analogous to toxic pollutant management. The clearly defined relationships that exist 

between toxic pollutant concentrations and specific toxicological end points are not present for nutrients. In other words, 

it is likely that an expectation that changes in ambient nutrient concentrations will produce desired end points in natural 

systems will not be fulfilled. The numerous other factors that influence algal growth confound the ability to unilaterally 

manage this condition through water quality modification. 

Our overarching concerns with the proposed numeric nutrient standard approach are as follows: 

• Lack of scientific linkage between the proposed standards and the benefit to be achieved; 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2256
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

• Lack of clarity over the problem to be addressed by specific standards; 

• Concern that adoption and implementation of numeric total nitrogen or total phosphorus standards are unlikely to 

accomplish stated or implied goals; 

• Concern that the definitive effects of proposed numeric nutrient standards will be significant regulatory and cost 

impacts on communities, without reasonable assurance of commensurate benefit; and 

• Concern whether proposed standards may do more harm than good. 

The rationale for numeric nutrient standards, apart from ease of regulation, often consists of preventing algal blooms to 

eliminate or reduce one or more of the following: 

• Proliferation of harmful algal species or toxins 

• Low dissolved oxygen 

• Taste and odor episodes in water supplies 

• Degraded biological communities 

• Fish kills 

• Nuisance conditions (e.g. objectionable aesthetics or odors) 

• Reduced water clarity 

• Changes in food web 

Often, the numeric standards that are proposed are not specifically linked to or derived from the resolution of these 

issues. 

For instance, the stated purpose for developing numeric nutrient standards for the State of in Florida is that "nutrient 

pollution can significantly impact aquatic life and long-term ecosystem health, diversity, and balance." The proposed 

rule introduces specific concerns from nutrient and phosphorus loadings, namely "harmful algal blooms (HABs), 

reduced spawning grounds and nursery habitats, fish kills . . . oxygen-starved hypoxic or "dead" zones. . . impaired 

drinking water sources." Yet, as is often the case, the proposed numeric nutrient standards in Florida are not specifically 

tailored or justified to address these stated problems. Therefore, the connection between the standards and the specific 

uses to be protected does not exist. 

There are numerous factors and mechanisms that impact algal growth and resulting adverse effects. Research 

indicates that control of nutrient levels will not necessarily lead to improvements in beneficial uses. Two examples of 

this research are the drinking water supply issue related to control of tastes and odors (T&O) and harmful algal blooms. 

Nutrient control measures have proven ineffective as management tools to control T&O events in drinking water 

supplies. A diverse array of volatile organic compounds (VOC) are implicated in T&O episodes, including the terpenoid 

compounds geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol [MIB] (which account for the majority of drinking water complaints) but 

also polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) derivatives, isopropylthiols, and pigment derivatives such as b-cyclocitral. 

Nutrient control approaches for T&O problems are undermined by the fact that many aquatic organisms which produce 

T&O compounds are not algae and thus not ecologically well-linked to inorganic nutrient levels in water bodies. For 

example, geosmin and MIB are produced by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), but also by actinomycete bacteria 

(especially in relation to bivalve colonies)[1], myxobacteria (slime molds), fungi (especially in activated filters and 

distribution pipes), the amoeba Vanella, and even a liverwort[2]. Where T&O episodes have been linked to 

phytoplankton, the events are not well explained by the nutrient status or planktonic productivity of the systems. For 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2257
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

example, chrysophytes (golden algae) and their PUFA derivatives show little apparent relationship to nutrients on a 

broad scale[3]. Although the Great Lakes have undergone nutrient remediation, they are now exhibiting erratic T&O 

outbreaks in areas with reduced offshore nutrient levels and low phytoplankton biomass. Despite years of extensive 

field and laboratory research to determine the major causes of T&O outbreaks in the Great Lakes and identify key 

predictors, managers are still not able to predict the interannual variation in the intensity of the events[4]. 

Although surface blooms are perceived as primary sources of water odor, twice as many known odor-causing 

cyanobacterial species reside at the surface of bottom sediments, not free-floating in the water column[5]. 

Cyanobacteria growing on sides of reservoirs, or on dams, are responsible for most of the T&O events reported in the 

literature for terminal reservoirs receiving water from the State Water Project in California[6]. Because these colonies 

access nutrients released at the sediment/water interface, their occurrence is not predicted by nutrient concentrations in 

the water column; reservoir design and draw-down procedures are increasingly being considered as factors for T&O 

management[7]. Ironically, because nutrient reduction strategies have increased water transparency and production 

close to the shore in many systems, they may have improved conditions for attached algae that produce T&O 

compounds[8]. Although nutrient concentrations are poor predictors of T&O events, regression approaches using a 

suite of environmental variables have shown air and/or water temperature to be strongly correlated with T&O compound 

concentrations in at least four reservoirs[9]. 

Similarly, control of nutrient levels is not necessarily the path to effective management of harmful algal blooms (HAB). In 

the San Francisco Bay-Delta, HAB caused by dinoflagellates are rare. However, toxic blooms of Microcystis aeruginosa 

have recently occurred in the northern portion of the estuary during summer months. Despite speculation that nutrient 

levels (e.g., ammonium) or ratios (e.g. Nitrogen:Phosporous-N:P) would explain patterns of abundance or toxicity of 

Microcystis blooms in this system, several detailed field studies so far indicate that flow rates, residence time, water 

temperature, and possibly water transparency - but not nutrient levels or ratios - are the environmental factors 

correlated with Microcystis abundance and toxin production in the upper San Fransisco Estuary[10]. 

The examples above are cases where - contrary to public perception or regulatory implication - there is no clear linkage 

between nutrient concentrations and impairment of beneficial uses. These examples indicate that generic problems that 

are associated with algal blooms cannot necessarily be resolved through adoption and implementation of numeric 

nutrient water column standards. 

[1] Zaitlin et al., 2003; Zaitlin & Watson, 2006 

[2] Juttner & Watson, 2007 

[3] Watson et al., 1997, 2001a, 2001b 

[4] Watson et al., 2007, 2008 

[5] Jutter & Watson, 2007; Burlingame et al., 1986; Sugiura et al., 1998; Watson & Ridal, 2004; Baker et al., 2006 

[6] Izaguirre & Taylor, 2007; Losee, 2008 

[7] Lee, 2008; Losee, 2008; 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2258
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

[8] Juttner & Watson, 2007 

[9] Tung et al., 2008; Uwins et al., 2007; Yen et al., 2007 

[10] Lehman et al. 2008; Lehman et al. 2010; Mioni 2010. 

Comment ID 1559.001.005 

Author Name: Bonde J. 

Organization: Village of Wellington 

-The proposed rule does not recognize or analyze the impacts or relationships between nutrients and the biological 

communities in South Florida. 

Comment ID 1560.001.001 

Author Name: Pittman J. 

Organization: Jackson County Farm Bureau 

Please accept the following written comments on behalf of Jackson County Farm Bureau. Our primary concern with the 

proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida is that the proposed regional nutrient criteria ignore the 

variability of Florida's surface waters. 

Florida is a diverse state, with several soil types and distinct water bodies. As an agricultural association, we agree that 

clean water is necessary for successful production. However, determining the proper numerical water quality standard 

requires sound science and site specific criteria. Without site specific numeric nutrient criteria, healthy water bodies will 

be deemed impaired and resources will be wasted attempting to make those water bodies meet nutrient concentrations 

they would not naturally meet due to their natural diversity. 

Comment ID 1561.001.001 

Author Name: Dauphin M. 

Organization: Bay County Farm Bureau 

Please accept the following written comments on behalf of Bay County Farm Bureau Federation. Our primary concern 

with the proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida is that the proposed regional nutrient criteria 

ignore the variability of Florida's surface waters. 

Florida is a diverse state, with several soil types and distinct water bodies. As an agricultural association, we agree that 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2259
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

clean water is necessary for successful production. However, determining the proper numerical water quality standard 

requires sound science and site specific criteria. Without site specific numeric nutrient criteria, healthy water bodies will 

be deemed impaired and resources will be wasted attempting to make those water bodies meet nutrient concentrations 

they would not naturally meet due to their natural diversity. 

Comment ID 1565-1.001.004 

Author Name: Wedgworth G. 

Organization: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida 

We respectfully ask th at EPA refrain from moving forward with its proposed numeric nutrient criteria rulemaking. We 

believe that numeric nutrient criteria for surface waters should: 

• be developed by the state of Florida based on rigorous site-specific stressor-response data; 

• provide criteria that are truly protective of native species and natural ecosystems that reside with in South Florida 's 

surface waters; 

• provide assurances that these waters meet their designated uses; 

• be implemented in a cost effective manner producing meaningful and measurable benefits. 

Comment ID 1614-1.001.008 

Author Name: DeBogory P. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Second, we believe that using statistics to determine nutrient limits across large regions is not a sound, rational way to 

determine nutrient criteria. Florida's water bodies are each unique, and developing regional standards fails to account 

for the individual characteristics of Florida's important surface waters. In addition, by EPA's own admission, using 

statistical methods "does not definitively demonstrate that exceeding the threshold" ..."results in harm (impairment) to 

the aquatic life in a particular waterbody." 

Comment ID 1617-1.001.008 

Author Name: Ammerman D. 

Organization: Florida Water Environment Association and WateReuse Florida 

We are also concerned about the lack of distinction in the rule between the various forms and sources of nitrogen and 

phosphorus. We do not believe it is sound science or appropriate to use total nitrogen and total phosphorus as the sole 

measure of compliance for a numeric standard. For example, an Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT) level of effluent will 

generally produce a high level of organic nitrogen in the makeup of the total nitrogen; perhaps as high as 98% of the 

effluent nitrogen may be organic in form, and this nitrogen is typically not readily bio-available. (Most AWT effluents 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2260
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

have oxidized all of the ammonia, and reduced the nitrate/nitrite fraction to nitrogen gas, leaving organic nitrogen as the 

primary component of total nitrogen.) Atmospheric deposition on the other hand, will generally produce NOX 

compounds; septic tank effluents will produce ammonia, nitrates and organic nitrogen; commercial fertilizers will 

produce ammonia and nitrate compounds - all of which are more bio-available than the organic nitrogen from an AWT 

effluent. The rule fails to distinguish between these forms of nitrogen (except for nitrates in spring-sheds) and lumps all 

nitrogen species under the total nitrogen label. This lack of recognition of the nitrogen species and bio-availability of 

each will unfairly burden AWT facilities and other sources of organic nitrogen as potential causes or contributions to 

waters determined impaired under the proposed numeric limits. Similar arguments could be made for phosphorus 

species. 

Comment ID 1641-1.001.009 

Author Name: Littrell J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System 

Stressor Response Relationship 

EPA's proposal is supported by methods which do not specifically identify an absolute stressor response relationship for 

each water body to be regulated. EPA acknowledges that there are lines of evidence to suggest that 20ug/L of 

Chlorophyll a is the proper benchmark for all lakes and that 0.82 mg/L in total nitrogen is the proper benchmark for 

streams in the Panhandle. However, EPA cannot show that a stream in the Florida Panhandle with a concentration of 

total nitrogen of greater 0.82 mg/L will not support a healthy and diverse biological community. It certainly would not 

prevent a swimmer or boater from using the water body. The distribution method simply makes a prediction of how 

many water bodies or stream segments would be expected to be at or below that limit. 

Further, it is not fully transparent what data set was used to assess the water quality distributions; nor is the paper trail 

to the underlying meta data intact. 

Reviewing the basis for the EPA's proposal, it also appears that EPA is trying to establish water quality expectations 

with respect to periods of geologic time when humans were not yet present in Florida. This is suggested by EPA's 

comparison of their assessed values to values derived from the Paleolimnological record. Our review also suggests that 

EPA selected baseline reference sites that are weighted towards sites that show little, if any, evidence of human 

disturbance. Is the goal to return Florida back to the days before man appeared? We do not think this is practical or 

feasible. 

A recent memorandum from the Florida FDEP points out that based on EPA's proposed criteria, over 40% of the water 

bodies in the Florida Panhandle currently would fail to meet those criteria. There are 100 waterbodies in or related to 

Okaloosa County. Of those, 25% would currently fail these proposed criteria. There is insufficient data to completely 

assess 75% of these waterbodies with respect to these proposed standards. Whereas only 20% of the water bodies in 

the Florida Lower Peninsula would fail. According to the FDEP 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment, "Water 

quality in the northwest and west-central sections of the state is generally better than in other areas." It is completely 

illogical that the Panhandle Region would then also have the greatest number of waterbody segments out of 

compliance. This raises serious doubt as to the methods and basis for EPA's proposed standards. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2261
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1641-1.001.016 

Author Name: Littrell J. 

Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System 

EPA's analysis is severely flawed with respect to identifying appropriate stressor-response relationships between 

nutrient levels and measures adopted to assess the level at which the subject waters attain their current use and 

classification. This requirement is fundamental to the purpose and intent of the Clean Water Act. 

Comment ID 1646-1.001.002 

Author Name: Gardner P. 

Organization: City of Eagle Lake 

The Eagle Lake City Commission requests that the EPA consider the particular geology of the area, together with the 

currently available technology for storm water treatment, before making a final determination of nutrient water quality 

criteria. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me at 863-293-4141 should you need further information. 

Comment ID 1647-1.001.013 

Author Name: Kates K. 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

Relationship Between Nutrients and Response Variables 

The EPA has not adequately demonstrated a useful relationship between causal variables and response variables. The 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, Inc. (NCASI) has performed an analysis that shows numerous 

variables such as percent canopy cover, stream color and water turbidity tend to have stronger correlations with water 

quality response variables than TN and TP. The proposed numeric standards do not demonstrate a statistically 

significant correlation between the supposed causal variables (total nitrogen, TN, and total phosphorus, TP). Separate 

analyses have indicated that changes in canopy cover and stream color are more significant factors in accepted 

measures of nutrient impairment relative to TN and TP concentrations. The proposed criteria fail to account for the 

extreme variability occurring in natural conditions, specifically, causal variables other than N and P (NCASI 2010). 

Comment ID 1647-1.001.014 

Author Name: Kates K. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2262
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

Site-Specific Models and Criteria 

Supposedly due to cost, the EPA resorted to a reference condition/statistical analysis approach for determining nutrient 

criteria. This simplistic approach leads to unreasonably high occurrences of Type I and II errors. Mechanistic sitespecific models for lakes and flowing waters are the most reliable and scientifically defensible approach to regulating 

nutrients based on established nutrient response criteria. The cost and time to collect site-specific data and develop 

mechanistic models can be significant in complex systems such as estuaries, but can be significantly less than the cost 

of implementing nutrient reductions from both point and nonpoint sources. This is particularly true when the required 

nutrient reductions are based on uncertain numeric nutrient criteria that may or may not protect the designated uses 

due to unclear cause and effect relationships between nutrients and response variables (HydroQual 2010). Utilizing the 

stressor-response relationship when determining nutrient impairment is the most desirable approach because it directly 

relates the nutrient "stressor" with the undesirable response. When there is not enough information to determine a 

stressor-response, then the reference approach is utilized. With this approach, it is only assumed that biological 

integrity is protected, although there is no evidence to support the assumption (Obreza et al. 2010). Prior to being listed 

as impaired, the EPA should require biological validation and should provide clear site-specific alternative criteria 

(FDEP 2010b). Additionally, the EPA should recognize the FDEP's TMDLs as site specific alternative criteria. 

Ultimately, scientifically defensible mechanistic models that truly relate nutrients to the response variables that impact 

designated uses make the best use of limited funds and provide the greatest benefit to the environment (HydroQual 

2010). 

An example illustrating the importance of utilizing site-specific criteria is the FDEP's finding which strongly suggests that 

excess nutrients have little effect on algal response in highly colored lakes (>140 PCU). The FDEP has gathered water 

quality data for Lake Manatee, within Manatee County, which demonstrates no associative relationship between TP and 

chlorophyll concentrations /algal blooms. Lake Manatee is a highly colored lake with average annual geometric mean 

concentrations of TP well in excess of the proposed criteria threshold (0.304 mg/L). Despite these very elevated levels, 

chlorophyll concentrations have been well below 20 ug/L, suggesting that there is no evidence of excess algal response 

to the elevated levels of TP in the highly colored lake and that the EPA criteria may be overprotective (FDEP 2010c). 

Comment ID 1647-1.001.018 

Author Name: Kates K. 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

Potential to Damage Existing Ecosystems 

The state of Florida contains a vast array of diverse, aquatic ecosystems; no two water bodies will exhibit the same 

characteristics. Due to the non-site-specific nature of the EPA's criteria, there is a concern and very real possibility that 

certain aquatic ecosystems that have naturally higher levels of nutrients could become irreparably damaged due to 

forced compliance with the proposed rule. As pointed out by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural 

Sciences (UF/IFAS), changes in nutrient concentration of a water body are more likely to cause an imbalance in aquatic 

life as when compared to a water body that has a relatively constant high or low nutrient concentration. If nutrient 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2263
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

concentrations in a water body are naturally high, the aquatic ecosystem that developed there is supported by and in 

some respects dependent on these high nutrient concentrations. Some Florida lakes, streams, and springs are naturally 

high in phosphorus because these water bodies directly interact with phosphorus-rich bedrock and groundwater, 

emphasizing the importance to distinguish a water body that is naturally high in nutrients from those that have become 

impaired to anthropogenic and/or animal sources (Obreza et al. 2010). 

Comment ID 1671-3.001.104 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

M. Interaction between Nutrients and Mercury Contamination of Fish Tissue 

DEP is currently conducting a statewide Mercury TMDL Study, and it is DEP's intention to develop a protective TMDL 

for mercury that would result in emissions reductions and protect State waters regardless of their trophic status. 

However, it may take decades to actually achieve the needed mercury reductions, making the interaction between 

mercury and nutrients an important issue during nutrient criteria development. One of the Mercury TMDL Study's 

principle investigators, Dr. Curt Pollman, conducted modeling that suggests that artificially lowering nutrients in waters 

where they do not currently cause imbalances could result in the unintended consequence of increasing mercury 

contamination in fish, exacerbating a public health issue in a manner clearly not in accordance with the Clean Water 

Act. The results, clearly refute EPA's assumption that lower nutrient concentrations in streams and lakes are always 

environmentally beneficial, and in fact, indicate that unneeded lowering of nutrients may result in unintended 

environmental harm. 

This unintended impact is due to the fact that trophic state exerts a profound influence on the cycling of Hg and its 

bioaccumulation in the aquatic food webs. Although the effects of changing nutrient concentrations on Hg cycling are 

complex[2], the generally observed net effect of decreasing nutrient levels in lakes and streams on biota is to drive Hg 

concentrations in fish tissue higher, most likely through decreased particle dilution and alteration of food webs. 

EPA's nutrient criteria were analyzed to determine their influence on biota mercury concentrations in lakes across the 

state based on a probabilistically sampled data set (n =100). Two different scenarios were modeled. The first assumed 

that lake TP concentrations are universally limited to 30 ug/L or lower, and the second assumed that we define 

acceptable trophic state based on chlorophyll a concentrations of 5 mg/m3 (similar to EPA's proposed 6 ug/L 

chlorophyll target). 

The TP simulation was based on an empirical model that related estimated age three largemouth bass Hg 

concentrations [EHg(3)] as a function of TP, pH, SO4, TN, and DOC, but not chlorophyll a. Similarly, the chlorophyll a 

simulation was based on an empirical model that used pH, color, SO4, filtered Hg and methyl Hg, and chlorophyll a (but 

not TP or TN) as the independent variables. Both models were developed using a non-linear (neural net) approach, and 

the functional influence of the individual variables on EHg(3) were verified to match expected relationships. 

Predicted changes in the cumulative frequency distribution (cfd) of EHg(3) for the two trophic state reduction scenarios 

are shown in Figures 21 and 22. Both cfd's have been weighted by the surface area of the individual lakes. This is 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2264
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

important from a human health risk perspective because most Florida lakes with high Hg concentrations will be small, 

pristine seepage lakes, while larger lakes tend to be more culturally eutrophic and have lower fish Hg concentrations. 

As a result, the areal extent of lakes with elevated fish Hg could increase quite dramatically with r 

The average increase in EHg(3) for lakes chlorophyll a is predicted to be 0.05 and 0.06 mg/kg, respectively, which 

equates to ~ 25% of the likely mercury TMDL threshold. The areal extent of lakes with predicted EHg(3) concentrations 

above 0.2 mg/kg (Florida's proposed mercury fish tissue criterion) from 76% to 86% (chlorophyll a model). 

DEP urges EPA to seriously consider this issue and develop an integrated model approach that considers the effects of 

changing nutrient levels on both trophic state and biota Hg concentrations. Florida's statewide Hg TMDL effort could 

provide the foundation for such a model and could help the EPA ensure that its efforts to improve trophic state and 

reduce concentrations of fish Hg concentrations are optimized. Finally, because the TMDL study includes streams and 

lakes, the results from this study could be used to develop an integrated model for both types of aquatic ecosystems. 

Original comment letter contains additional information about lakes from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria 

comment report in Figure 21. Prediction of change in EHg(3) concentrations in 100 Florida lakes assuming that the 

maximum in-lake chlorophyll a concentration is 5 mg/m3 on page 70. See original comment letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information about lakes from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria 

comment report in Figure 22. Prediction of change in EHg(3) concentrations in 100 Florida lakes assuming that the 

maximum in-lake chlorophyll a concentration is 5 mg/m3 on page 71. See original comment letter. 

[2] For example, increased nutrients can produce lower DO concentrations, resulting in greater methylation rates; 

increased nutrients can also promote sulfide production in sediments, which can sequester and make unavailable Hg 

necessary for methylation. 

Comment ID 1700-1.001.002 

Author Name: Mahan R. 

Organization: MB Management 67, Inc. 

That's not to say that we cannot improve water quality in areas that might have issues. In fact, I agree that numeric 

standards could be helpful. However the "standards" proposed by the EPA are way too broad, appear to be arbitrarily 

applied across swaths of varying water bodies, and do not take into account the significant variability from one water 

system to the next. 

Comment ID 1712-1.001.004 

Author Name: Temple A. 

Organization: B&W Quality Growers, Inc. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2265
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

We believe that Florida has unique water bodies which are not touched by human activities. If these would be 

determined impaired under the new rule, it would be an unnecessary burden on all of us in the state. By not evaluating 

all water bodies in Florida under the criteria proposed by the EPA, the unique and inherent characteristics of the 

different watersheds will not be taken into account. Our State DEP has been working to collect data from the various 

watersheds and to adopt a Basin Management Action Plan. We support that approach since it will be more scientifically 

sound than an approach where all waters are treated under one set of standards. 

Comment ID 1713-1.001.005 

Author Name: Wheeler B. 

Organization: Tohopekaliga (Toho) Water Authority 

The imposition of NNC in Florida would appear to contradict a Watershed approach to controlling and improving water 

quality which EPA has advocated at times and in its sustainability emphasis. Nutrients act in concert with other water 

quality variables to promote harmful algae growths and their resultant impacts. By themselves, in the concentrations 

presently permitted for discharges from Florida wastewater treatment facilities, nutrients do not degrade water quality. It 

is only when the right mix or levels of nutrients and other water quality variables are present for a particular water body 

or reach of a stream that the harmful algae growth occurs. A watershed approach to improving water quality identifies 

and evaluates all of the stressors and sources within a basin instead of focusing on individual pollutants on a discharge 

by discharge basis. The most effective way to control nutrients and their impacts would appear to be to identify all of the 

sources of nutrients and the other parameters that act in concert with them to degrade the water quality within a basin 

and to then develop a cost effective strategy for control of the nutrients. As EPA and you are aware, the most significant 

sources of nutrient loading to lakes and streams come from non-point source agricultural and urban runoff. Developing 

NNC to apply to NPDES point source discharges will potentially result in the expenditure of significant resources by 

wastewater treatment facilities to attain compliance without significant commensurate improvement in water quality 

because some of the major nutrient sources in the watershed are not point sources. The Watershed approach and the 

companion Total Maximum Daily load (TMDL) program, while relatively slow and under-resourced, has been shown to 

produce significant improvements in water quality with a more efficient use of resources and the inclusion of the 

majority of contributors to the problem. Requiring the State of Florida to provide the appropriate resources to more fully 

implement the TMDL program would appear to be a more practical and beneficial approach to the nutrient issue. 

Comment ID 1722-1.001.004 

Author Name: Cunniff L. 

Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 

3. Methodology does not allow for secondary validation such as biological indicators. Chemical analytics alone cannot 

be relied on exclusively and a secondary methodology must be available to confirm or acquit a cause-effect conclusion. 

Comment ID 1723-1.001.006 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2266
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: East Charlotte Drainage District 

While this point is detailed in the Florida Association of Special District's comments, it is worth noting that there is no 

relationship between nutrient levels and the biological health of flowing waters. This point was acknowledged by EPA 

during a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Technical Advisory Committee meeting discussing the 

development of numeric criteria for Florida waters. Controlling nutrient levels in flowing waters, especially man-made 

canals, does not control the biological response within a given flowing water. Simply stated the cost of compliance will 

far outweigh the biological benefits that will be derived from the proposed criteria in both money and protection of public 

safety. 

Comment ID 1725-1.001.003 

Author Name: Nyhus S. 

Organization: Flaherty & Hood, P.A. on behalf of Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

Comments on EPA's Proposed Florida Nutrient WQS Adoption
 

The following provides specific comments on EPA's proposed nutrient WQS for Florida:
 

I. The Approach Taken to Develop the Nutrient Standards Ignores EPA's Science Advisory Board Recommendations 

and Is Inconsistent with EPA's Guidance for Developing Water Quality Standards 

MESERB believes that it is important for EPA to promulgate standards that are consistent with EPA's controlling 

regulations and published peer-reviewed guidance. Deviating from an accepted scientifically-defensible protocol in an 

effort to develop across-the-board numeric standards quickly and inexpensively is ill-advised and unlikely to consistently 

restore and/or maintain designated uses. 

With regard to the development ofnutrient standards, EPA has issued several versions of guidance in an effort to 

effectively implement its controlling regulations. The latest rendition -" Nutrient Criteria for Water Quality - Guidance for 

Numeric Approaches" -- was recently subjected to a thorough and probing peer review process on September 9-11, 

2009. During this review, the Science Advisory Board's (SAB's) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee identified 

several critical shortcomings with the proposed guidance. With regard to these comments, many of the guidance's 

approaches were utilized in developing the proposed Florida standards at issue. 

As detailed more thoroughly in the attachment provided, the cormnittee made it abundantly clear that the methods in 

the guidance were seriously flawed, did not demonstrate "cause and effect" and, therefore, were not a "scientifically 

defensible" basis to establish nutrient standards. (See Draft 2010 SAB findings - excerpts attached). Similarly, EPA has 

identified several threshold requirements set forth in its regulations and peer-reviewed guidance on how to properly 

derive water quality standards. (See "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the 

Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses," USEPA 1985 (hereinafter "Guidelines") - see excerpts attached). 

Although it would seem fairly obvious, EPA should only develop standards that conform to its regulations and 

implementing guidance. MESERB does not believe EPA has done so in this case. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2267
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Specifically, these proposed Florida standards deviate from EPA's express requirements and the SAB's 

recommendations on how to develop scientifically defensible standards that will properly regulate nutrients only when 

and where they cause unacceptable impacts. Most importantly, in releasing the standards, EPA concedes that (1) the 

proposed standards were not derived from a demonstrated causal relationship (Rule Preamble at 75), (2) the stream 

targets have no connection to a measurable level of impairment (i.e. dissolved oxygen or chlorophyll-a levels), and (3) 

the proposed numeric criteria do not account for all critical habitat factors known to control whether or how nutrients 

impact uses in lakes, streams or canals (e.g. depth, scour, light, substrate, floating plants, detention time, etc.) (Rule 

Preamble 73-82). Collectively, these examples illustrate just a few of the most significant ways that the approach used 

by EPA to derive the standards deviates from the EPA's controlling regulations, EPA's applicable guidance, and the 

SAB's recommendations. Until EPA's approach conforms to these requirements, we believe that the Florida standards 

are not scientifically defensible. 

EPA's proposed standards fail to meet the regulatory framework set forth in the controlling regulations and guidance. In 

so doing, EPA appears willing to sacrifice the principles of scientifically-defensible criteria derivation methodologies for 

an approach that will produce criteria which are unnecessarily stringent. Although a cross-cutting approach is easier 

and quicker to develop, the financial and environmental costs associated with utilizing such an indefensible 

methodology far outweigh the costs of doing it correctly with site-specific data. MESERB has engaged in discussions 

with state regulators for years on this very point. 

Comment ID 1725-1.001.007 

Author Name: Nyhus S. 

Organization: Flaherty & Hood, P.A. on behalf of Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

V. The Proposal Inappropriately Regulates Florida Waters Affected by Natural Conditions 

MESERB is concerned that the proposed standards inappropriately regulate natural conditions. The controlling Florida 

law, not unlike Minnesota law, specifically exempts natural conditions from meeting water quality standard objectives. 

Despite these regulations, the Agency's proposed standards will force dischargers to install costly advanced treatment 

technology and thwart local development even though the instream nutrient conditions are elevated for reasons 

completely unrelated to anthropogenic sources. 

Comment ID 1725-1.001.011 

Author Name: Nyhus S. 

Organization: Flaherty & Hood, P.A. on behalf of Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

Summary 

EPA's approach will broadly classify waters throughout the state as impaired when they are not, will force communities 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2268
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

and agricultural operations to reduce nutrients, regardless of demonstrated need, and will result in using energy and 

resources urmecessarily. Predicting that nutrients are causing problems even in areas classified by the state as pristine 

shows this proposal bears no reasonable relationship to actual environmental needs. EPA's "one-size-fits all" proposal, 

in many instances, will produce a net environmental detriment by wasting energy and severely impacting local 

economies. EPA's approach forces communities to bear the burden of correcting EPA's scientific and teclmical 

shortcomings. This is not a reasonable solution to over-regulation, and violates the Guidelines principles of criteria 

derivation. 

Comment ID 1729.001.003 

Author Name: Fugett A. 

Organization: 

2. EPA should not implement nutrient criteria limits without demonstrating a cause and effect relationship between the 

nutrients and surface water impairment. EPA should not implement nutrient criteria if it has not been proven that the 

limits themselves will not impair surface waters or be protective of designated uses. 

Comment ID 1729.001.010 

Author Name: Fugett A. 

Organization: 

9. Florida has unique and diverse ecosystems that cannot be categorized under such broad terms as proposed by 

EPA's projected numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 1748-1.001.002 

Author Name: Choi C. 

Organization: Progress Energy on behalf of the Florida Power Corporation doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 

We have a number of concerns with EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida including, but not limited to: 

• EPA's argument that there is an unresolved nutrient problem in Florida and that the State's existing narrative criteria 

are inadequate is unsupported by several water quality assessment reports submitted to EPA. These reports clearly 

show that nutrients have fallen considerably over the past 25 years during a time period when the population of the 

State has more than doubled. Likewise, similar studies by the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection 

Commission and Tampa Bay Estuary Program have shown chlorophyll a levels and nitrogen inputs to Tampa Bay since 

mid-2000 are less than one-half of values observed in the 1970's. Again, these reductions occurred during a time period 

of considerable land development in the Tampa Bay watershed. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2269
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1767-1.001.004 

Author Name: Vinson R. 

Organization: TGA Sod LP and Turfgrass America 

3. The EPA standards, as proposed, could designate many water bodies as "impaired" without any scientific, biological 

validation of impairment. 

Comment ID 1767-1.001.005 

Author Name: Vinson R. 

Organization: TGA Sod LP and Turfgrass America 

Florida's waterways and water resources are precious and highly variable. Applying these non-specific, broad 

"standards", even by region, will not be beneficial for anyone, and will end up damaging our water resources in the long 

run. Resources are always limited. These crudely developed standards will cause resources to be diverted from 

beneficial, positive private and municipal projects to "fix" water bodies that are not truly impaired in any way. 

Comment ID 1768-1.001.009 

Author Name: Armingeon N. 

Organization: St. Johns River Keeper 

• There should be no allowance for upward modifications of the nitrogen and phosphorus criteria based on samples 

showing that, despite high nitrogen and phosphorus levels, chlorophyll levels are tolerable. 

Comment ID 1774-1.001.022 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

We note that the Agency's own Science Advisory Board has advised that "[n]umeric nutrient criteria developed and 

implemented without consideration of system specific conditions (e.g., from a classification based on site types) can 

lead to management actions that may have negative social and economic and unintended environmental consequences 

without additional environmental protection." See: Draft Science Advisory Board (SAB) Ecological Processes and 

Effects Committee Advisory Report. at page 37, January 8, 2010. 

Comment ID 1774.001.005 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2270
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

There is a difference between organic nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen. Often a stream may have high total nitrogen 

because of organic nitrogen that does not pose a threat to aquatic flora and fauna. Such differences need to be 

appropriately considered in setting any standard. In looking at several months data on Crabgrass Creek, for example, I 

note that organic nitrogen equaled 1.733 mg/l out of 1.76 mg/l total nitrogen during one month, and 1.826 mg/l out of 

1.88 mg/l during another month. 

Comment ID 1774.001.006 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

There is a variation in nutrient concentration based upon soils over which the rain falls and the water runs. Normal for 

sandy soils is not normal for soils with a more organic content. Water sampled from more organic soils have historically 

and naturally been higher in nutrients than water from sandy soils. The proposed criteria do not, but should, address 

this variation. 

Comment ID 1774.001.015 

Author Name: Payne J. 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

Along with FDEP, we are concerned that EPA has not done an adequate job of evaluating the temporal and seasonal 

distribution of the data used in derivation of the nutrient criteria. We have seen wide ranges of both temporal and 

seasonal variability in the water quality data collected at Deseret over the past decade. 

The graph below depicts the temporal variability and seasonal excursions in nutrient concentrations for a sampling point 

on Wolf Creek, WBID 3075, located on the Deseret Ranches. The watershed area above this sampling point is entirely 

on the Ranch. The data set for this graph comes from monthly sampling performed by the St. Johns River Water 

Management District from January 2000 to January 2010. Note the variability for both Total Nitrogen and Total 

Phosphorus often ranges from more than 100% greater to more than 50% less than the long term average. There also 

appears to be a seasonal pattern of high concentrations in the late summer and low concentrations in the early spring. 

Due to the high degree of variability from month to month and year to year we are concerned that EPA use data that 

adequately characterizes the "typical" long term nutrient regime when establishing the numeric criteria. 

Comment ID 1774.001.016 

Author Name: Payne J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2271
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 

Another example, Crabgrass Creek, WBID 3073 shows a variation in TN from 0.37 in January, 2001 to 1.889 in 

September of 2005. Why is there such a variance? Certainly the difference was not man caused but more of a natural 

variation. TN in January, 2001 was 0.37. Other data for January in other years was 0.98, 0.83, 1.20, 0.82, and 1.01. 

Why is there such a variance? The differences cannot be explained by man induced causes but result from natural 

variation. The numeric criteria proposed do not take this variation into account. Similar concerns exist for TP. 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.003 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District

 On page 25-26 EPA states "EPA expects that by addressing protection of aquatic life uses through the application of 

the proposed numeric nutrient criteria in this rulemaking, risks to human health will also be alleviated, as nutrient levels 

that represent a balance of natural populations of flora and fauna will not produce harmful algal blooms nor result in 

highly elevated nitrate levels." There is an incredible amount of spatial and temporal heterogeneity in Florida's geology 

and water quality, which constrains the accuracy of this statement made by EPA. In particular, water quality concerns 

such as low dissolved oxygen concentrations and/or elevated nitrate concentrations often are associated with healthy 

streams that receive significant flows from wetlands. The LRD believes a more rational and economically affordable 

approach would be to address human health risks derived from water quality issues within specific water bodies that 

experience harmful algal blooms and/or other signs of impairment that affect human health. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.032 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Currently Florida utilities that discharge to surface waters use "best available treatment" (BAT) technologies that target 

significant reduction of ammonia-nitrogen a waste product of human activities and a nutrient known to contribute to 

surface water impairment. These BAT plants use a form of nutrient removal known as an Advanced Wastewater 

Treatment (AWT) process. 

The AWT process converts the ammonia-nitrogen in three stages. First the ammonia-nitrogen is converted to nitratenitrogen, a plant nutrient responsible for surface water impairment. Then this nitrate-nitrogen is biologically converted 

and released to the atmosphere as harmless nitrogen gas. After this process is completed, a very small amount of 

organic-nitrogen will remain in the wastewater effluent. This remaining organic nitrogen constituent is basically inert and 

is the largest percentage of the total nitrogen that remains. Perhaps as high as 98% of the recalcitrant effluent total 

nitrogen that survives treatment may be in the organic form, and is not considered to be bio-available within receiving 

streams. The small amounts of organic-nitrogen contained in the effluent of an AWT plant does not contribute to surface 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2272
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

water impairment to any appreciable degree. Conversely, the forms of nitrogen in sewage that do contribute to nutrient 

impairment in receiving streams are quite readily removed by the BAT process. The figure below illustrates the nitrogen 

cycle and the uptake of ammonium and nitrate by photosynthetic plants such as algae.[83] 

Original comment letter contains additional information in an illustration of Nitrogen Cycle and Uptake of Ammonium 

and Nitrate by photosynthetic plants from FWEA Utility Council, FSAWWA Utility Council, and FRWA. See original 

comment letter. 

In contrast, there are many natural causes of total-nitrogen discharge in a natural environment. These include: 

atmospheric deposition of nitrogen produced from discharges from the combustion of fossil fuels, effluents from septic 

tanks, leaching and runoff from direct application nitrogen containing commercial fertilizers from homeowners and 

agricultural uses, runoff from urban and agricultural areas, natural processes such as lightening and by the natural 

degradation of organic matter. All of these processes are contributors of ammonia-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen and 

organic-nitrogen to the receiving environment. All of these contributors produce forms of nitrogen that are significantly 

more bio-available than the organic-nitrogen or TN discharged from an AWT facility. 

This lack of recognition by EPA of the nitrogen species and then ignoring their bio-availability is an incorrect application 

when assessing nitrogen contributions to surface water impairment.[84] In fact, EPA's own users guide for estimating 

algal growth ignores the input of organic nitrogen as shown in the following figure from the EPA reference.[85] 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2 WASP Version - Eutrophication Kinetics from FWEA 

Utility Council, FSAWWA Utility Council, and FRWA. See original comment letter. 

In the figure above and for algal modeling purposes, Inorganic Nitrogen Nutrient input variables are shown as 

Ammonium (NH4) and Nitrate (NO3) within the red circle. The Organic Nitrogen input variables (ON) are shown within 

the green circle. EPA's reference states, "these carbonaceous variables (as shown inside the green circle) are formed 

only by detrital dissolution, and are not linked directly to algal cell excretion or death. In other words, organic nitrogen 

input into surface water systems are not used as input variables for predicting algal growth by EPA's own model.[86] 

When all nitrogen forms are grouped together, the grouping erroneously targets AWT facilities organic nitrogen 

contributions as contributors to surface water impairment. This treatment significantly exaggerates the potential impacts 

from AWT plants and while minimizing the impacts of the actual sources of bio-available nitrogen from the many 

sources that were previously noted. 

The following figure illustrates these contributions from various sources of biologically available nitrogen in surface 

water bodies. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3: Recent increases in anthropogenic N fixation in 

relation to “natural” N fixation. Modified from Vitousek, P. M. and P.A. Matson (1993). Agriculture, the global nitrogen 

cycle, and trace gas flux. The Biogeochemistry of Global Change: Radiative Trace Gases. R.S. Oremland. New York, 

Chapman and Hall: 193-208. See original comment letter. 

[83] The Habitable Planet, Ecoystems Online Textbook (Image: National Park Service), available at 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2273
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

http://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/unit/text.php?unit=4&secNum=4. 

[84] Hein, Pederson and Sand-Jensen, SIZE-DEPENDENT NITROGEN UPTAKE IN MICRO- AND MACROALGAE, 

Vol. 118, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 3/1995 

[85] WASP7 Benthic Algae, Model Theory and Users Guide 

[86] USEPA, WASP7 Benthic Algae, Model Theory and Users Guide, EPA 600/R-06/106 September 2006, 

http://.www.epa.gov 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.033 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Nitrogen limits should be scientifically established on a site specific basis as currently performed in Florida, when 

requiring beyond AWT "best available treatment" technologies for nutrient removal. Doing anything else is wasting 

valuable resources and producing "lost opportunity costs" for state residents. 

EPA's failure to recognize or distinguish between the forms of nitrogen and grouping all nitrogen species under the total 

nitrogen label, ignores the long-standing practice of developing a sound scientific rational for environmental regulations 

and for setting discharge limits. The grouping results in establishing confusing and complicated nutrient removal 

objectives with no real benefits. This grouping confuses the public who does not understand the scientific basis for the 

regulations. The end result is costly and ineffective wastewater treatment requirements and practices that the citizens of 

the State of Florida must build, operate and maintain. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.034 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Use of a total nitrogen limit by EPA exacerbates an already inappropriate application of a numeric nitrogen limit. EPA 

has taken this a step farther and imposed a total nitrogen limit that has no relationship to the impairment of Florida 

waters. EPA then imposes this non-scientifically based standard on Florida's wastewater utilities. EPA's failure to 

differentiate the species of nitrogen will result in significant financial burdens with the net benefit of insignificant 

environmental results. Florida's current narrative criterion implicitly acknowledges that the potential for biological 

impairment caused by nutrient levels varies based on the bioavailability of the nutrient species; a numeric nutrient 

criterion should do the same. 

Comment ID 1782-1.001.054 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2274
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Case Study 2: "Good Quality Waters" in the SJRWMD 

A 2006 report by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) analyzed water quality trends for select 

SJRWMD waters.[14] Although the district was not utilizing FDEP's Impaired Waters Rule or attempting to determine if 

waters were meeting designated uses, the analysis specifically considered the nutrient health of the district waters.[15] 

A dozen of the lakes, streams, and springs that graded out as exhibiting "good water quality" in this report nevertheless 

fail to meet one or more parameters of EPA's proposed criteria.[16] 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the table on page 6 of the pdf regarding SJRWMD Good 

Quality Waters in compliance with proposed Regional Federal Standards. See original comment letter. 

SJRWMD water quality experts (the proverbial "boots on the ground") have analyzed these springs, lakes, and streams 

within their district boundaries and found these waters to be healthy. A federal bureaucracy in Washington DC has 

promulgated and applied generalized standards for these same waters and declared these waters impaired. Again, this 

conflict highlights that crude broadly applicable criteria do not work; nutrient criteria must be set at the nutrient levels at 

which individual water bodies will exhibit imbalances of naturally occurring populations of flora and fauna, based on 

cause and effect determinations. 

[14] SJRWMD, 2004 Status and Trends in Water Quality at Selected Sites in the St. Johns River Water Management 

District (2006), available at http://floridaswater.com/technicalreports/pdfs/TP/SJ2006-6.pdf. 

[15] Id. at 8. 

[16] The analysis provided in the chart utilized FDEP's online analysis of surface water compliance with EPA instream 

protective values available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.010 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Four Principles for the Development of Valid Nutrient Controls 

NACWA believes the following principles are essential for the development of valid and meaningful nutrient controls and 

that ultimately a new, national paradigm for addressing nutrients is needed: 

1. Water quality goals must be technically and scientifically defensible and technically achievable; 

2. Water quality goals must be based on a demonstrated cause and effect relationship between stressor and response 

variables and should not be implemented until a biological impact has first been demonstrated; 

3. A watershed approach using adaptive management is essential to meeting long-term water quality goals; and 

4. Water quality goals should result in a net environmental benefit and consider cost and ancillary benefits in relation to 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2275
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

effectiveness and sustainability. 

Specific Recommendations for a Scientifically Valid Program 

NACWA believes the approach taken in Florida by EPA side-steps these core principles in order to ensure the criteria fit 

EPA's established mold for developing water quality criteria. NACWA offers the following recommendations for moving 

forward with a more reasonable and scientifically valid program for addressing nutrient enrichment in Florida and the 

rest of the nation: 

1. If EPA continues to pursue the federal criteria for Florida as proposed, the Agency should draft and submit for public 

comment implementation guidance before the criteria are promulgated; 

2. Nationally, EPA must change its existing framework that necessitates the establishment of numeric criteria for TN 

and TP, which may not be appropriate for all waters; 

3. EPA should better recognize and approve new and innovative approaches for expressing nutrient water quality goals 

currently being considered by some states; 

4. Future water quality criteria development work must be supported by information on biological response to ensure 

criteria will actually protect designated uses; 

5. Additional flexibility, both in criteria development and in permitting (e.g., averaging periods), to account for the unique 

behavior of nutrients must be provided; 

6. Ultimately, EPA, the states and remaining stakeholders must work to establish a new, more holistic approach to 

addressing water quality problems that includes meaningful and equitable controls and implementation requirements for 

all nutrient sources. 

Building on these principles and recommendations, NACWA believes a new dialogue must begin to outline more 

reasonable approaches to nutrient control. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.013 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

NACWA believes that EPA's continued insistence that only state-wide numeric nutrient criteria for TN and TP can meet 

the requirement in the CWA to protect designated uses of waterbodies is not supported by the science and is leading to 

nutrient requirements that will likely be unachievable and result in limited environmental benefit. EPA cites the need to 

address excessive plant growth as a driver for federal promulgation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. However, the 

way EPA has structured the proposal, stringent nutrient requirements will be imposed even when plant growth is not 

found to be excessive. EPA's proposal applies all criteria components independently and impairment occurs if TN or TP 

concentrations are exceeded, regardless of plant growth conditions. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.014 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2276
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

While NACWA plans to discuss the issue of nutrient criteria development in more detail in its upcoming Summit, the 

scientific literature and EPA's own Science Advisory Board (SAB) continue to indicate that numeric nutrient criteria, as 

currently dictated by EPA, are not the only approach to protect water quality. The SAB's Ecological Processes and 

Effects Committee (EPEC), in its recent draft report from January 2010 draft report, stated: 

[t]he way in which EPA used results from mechanistic models to develop nutrient load reduction goals for the Gulf of 

Mexico (Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task force, 2008), and the way in which it is currently 

using mechanistic models for nutrient and sediment TMDLs for Chesapeake Bay, does not involve development or use 

of numeric nutrient criteria. The reason is that these mechanistic models (Scavia et al., 2004; Cerco and Noel, 2004) 

are load-response models, not empirical stressor-response models, and hence they obviate the need for numeric 

nutrient criteria because they directly link nutrient loads to response variables that represent water quality impairments 

(e.g., dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll, water clarity and acreage of submerged aquatic vegetation). (SAB 2010, at 5) 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.016 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Rather than relying on simple numeric values, Florida's regulations include both thresholds for nutrient impairment 

based on response variables and a confirmatory step using a site-specific bioassessment. 

The January 2010 SAB Report praises Florida's approach: 

We agree with the statement in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's letter of September 4, 2009 (letter 

from Daryll Joyner, Florida Department of Environmental Protection to Thomas Armitage, Designated Federal Officer, 

EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office) indicating that the "most scientifically defensible strategy for managing 

nutrients within the range of uncertainty is to verify a biological response prior to taking a management action." This 

risk/performance-based approach to setting nutrient criteria is evident not only in Florida's program, but also in those 

developed by California and Maine (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2009; Maine Department of 

Department of [sic] Environmental Protection, 2009; McLaughlin and Sutula, 2007). Those risk-based linkages are not 

addressed in either the Guidance or EPA's Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance documents for Rivers (2000), 

Lakes/Reservoirs (2000), and Estuaries (2001). (SAB 2010, at 6) 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.056 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Issues for Future Discussion 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2277
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Again, NACWA believes that a new approach or approaches are needed nationally on this issue and is convening a 

Summit of its membership to outline potential solutions. NACWA plans to use the report from the Summit to initiate a 

dialogue with EPA and the states on improving the water quality paradigm for nutrients. 

Again, NACWA believes the following principles are essential for the development of valid and meaningful nutrient 

controls, ultimately leading to a new, national approach: 

1. Water quality goals must be technically and scientifically defensible and technically achievable; 

2. Water quality goals must be based on a demonstrated cause and effect relationship between stressor and response 

variables and should not be implemented until a biological impact has first been demonstrated; 

3. A watershed approach using adaptive management is essential to meeting long-term water quality goals; and 

4. Water quality goals should result in a net environmental benefit and consider cost and ancillary benefits in relation to 

effectiveness and sustainability. 

These principles will guide NACWA's discussions moving forward, as will a consideration of the implementation realities 

we face as a nation. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.057 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Considerations for a New Approach to Nutrient Control 

Implementing water quality criteria requires a complicated balancing act between two extremes of the spectrum of water 

use. One extreme is discharging untreated wastes to streams, similar to practices that occurred prior to enacting the 

CWA. The other extreme is complete protection and isolation of waterbodies with no use or impact by mankind. The 

reality is somewhere between these extremes. 

Several factors must be considered to balance between the two extremes. For example, can a range of conditions be 

accepted to allow for time and data collection to discover an optimal compromise? Such an adaptive management 

approach may support activities that should improve water quality and the ability to evaluate the true effectiveness of 

these activities. Adaptive management can distribute the associated implementation costs, making the activities more 

affordable, and provide better assurance that resources are spent wisely. An adaptive management approach allows for 

the investigation and determination of activities that are sustainable and the selection of activities to improve water 

quality that consider the technical feasibility to implement dependable measures. Driving all of this, an overarching 

watershed management plan is essential for success in ensuring that all sources and needs are balanced and 

addressed. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.062 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2278
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

States Are Trying New Approaches to Ensure Criteria Reflect Biological Conditions 

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency is currently in the process of developing nutrient criteria for streams and 

inland lakes in the state. To develop the criteria, change points in data relating benthic chlorophyll a to nutrients are 

being compared to desired objectives for macroinvertebrate and fish community health and dissolved oxygen levels and 

diel swings. It has been indicated that a weight-of-evidence approach would be the most appropriate way of 

implementing these nutrient criteria. Biological impairment would be the first trigger before the nutrient criteria would 

apply. For sites in which the biological community is not in attainment, nutrient concentrations, DO swings, and 

chlorophyll a concentrations would all be evaluated to determine whether nutrients are contributing to the impairment. If 

nutrients are determined to be a source of impairment, the developed numeric criteria would then need to be met and 

may be used to set effluent limits. NACWA believes that approaches like those being pursued by Ohio EPA may 

provide a more scientifically defensible and reasonable approach to implementing nutrient water quality programs. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.063 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Nutrient Assimilation Zone Concept 

Implementation flexibility for nutrient controls is essential and some stakeholders are working on a nutrient assimilation 

zone (NAZ) concept to represent an area or volume in a waterbody where both traditional dilution and nutrient 

assimilation is allowed. Nutrient goals could be exceeded within the proposed NAZ but would be met at its boundaries. 

Dilution within mixing zones is presently allowed by regulation to comply with acute and chronic water quality criteria for 

toxics. Unlike toxics, nutrient effects are subtle and tend to occur along continuums as opposed to "bright line" 

thresholds. As such, effective management of nutrient discharges should allow for nutrient assimilation in addition to 

traditional dilution. 

Currently available numerical models have the potential to estimate expected responses in various end points (e.g., 

algal growth) associated with various levels of treatment. The results of such models could be applied to determine 

appropriate site-specific controls. This proposed modeling approach is consistent with the findings of the SAB review 

that advocated for greater use of mechanistic tools rather than a reliance on simple statistical approaches. NACWA 

plans to further explore the NAZ concept as well as other approaches designed to improve the implementation of 

nutrient controls during its Summit this summer. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.065 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Again, NACWA offers the following recommendations for moving forward with a more reasonable and scientifically valid 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2279
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

program for addressing nutrient enrichment: 

1. If EPA continues to pursue the federal criteria for Florida as proposed, the Agency should draft and submit for public 

comment implementation guidance before the criteria are promulgated; 

2. Nationally, EPA must change its existing framework that necessitates the establishment of numeric criteria for TN 

and TP, which may not be appropriate for all waters; 

3. EPA should better recognize and approve new and innovative approaches for expressing nutrient water quality goals 

currently being considered by some states; 

4. Future water quality criteria development work must be supported by information on biological response to ensure 

criteria will actually protect designated uses; 

5. Additional flexibility, both in criteria development and in permitting (e.g., averaging periods), to account for the unique 

behavior of nutrients must be provided; 

6. Ultimately, EPA, the states and remaining stakeholders must work to establish a new, more holistic approach to 

addressing water quality problems that includes meaningful and equitable controls and implementation requirements for 

all nutrient sources. 

NACWA believes a new dialogue must begin to outline more reasonable approaches to nutrient control and that 

additional scientific and technical work is needed, including in the following areas, to arrive at supportable outcomes: 

• Continue research to better define biological impacts of nutrients in different waterbodies; 

• Improve scientific understanding of the fraction of TP and TN that is not bioavailable; 

• Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the social, economic and environmental impacts of different concentrations of 

nutrients in different types of waterbodies versus the social, economic and environmental impacts of the different levels 

of nutrient treatment. 

Comment ID 1787-1.001.005 

Author Name: Spratt J. 

Organization: Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association 

The EPA's hastily constructed numeric nutrient criteria have raised a multitude of questions and concerns from a 

plethora of private stakeholders (representing a diverse cross-section of various industries within the state), average 

citizens, city and county governments, water management districts and the FDEP itself. The overwhelming consensus 

is that the EPA, in its rush to meet its legal obligations resulting from the signed consent decree, failed to adequately 

and accurately apply the necessary science to justify the formulation and promulgation of proven, appropriate and 

feasible phosphorus and nitrogen limiting criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. 

The insistent speed of the agency to expedite such complicated criteria by essentially taking shortcuts (i.e. non-site 

specific blanket criteria, not using stressor-response relationships for streams and canals and inappropriate use of the 

SPARROW modeling program for estimating downstream loads) leads one to question the EPA's scientific acumen. 

Florida's diverse aquatic ecosystems should not be relegated to a "one-size-fits-all" approach when determining nutrient 

impairment criteria. The variability of our lakes, springs, streams and their respective habitats is staggering. As a result, 

it is our belief EPA has not invested the time necessary to determine appropriate impairment thresholds and stressor11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2280
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

response relationships. 

Comment ID 1787-1.001.006 

Author Name: Spratt J. 

Organization: Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association 

To consider any alternative approach runs the potential risk of causing irreparable ecological damage as a result of 

artificially regulating and altering nutrient concentrations in those healthy water bodies with naturally higher levels of N 

and P. There is also the wasteful financial aspect of spending time and money to remediate non-impaired lakes, rivers, 

springs, streams and canals. 

Comment ID 1787-1.001.009 

Author Name: Spratt J. 

Organization: Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association 

The TMDLs and BMAPS have been developed and are based on site-specific, scientific data collection and analysis of 

the state's major hydrologic basins. Additionally, the creation and development of TMDLs, BMAPS and BMPs 

encourages and relies heavily on the participation and direct involvement of local stakeholders. There is a level of 

openness and transparency during the development process which allows for a multifaceted, multidisciplinary approach 

to addressing the impairment issues. In contrast to the site-specific TMDL and BMAP programs, the EPA's proposed 

numeric nutrient rule will introduce broad-sweeping, simplistic criteria leading to unfeasible and unobtainable 

regulations. According to Secretary Michael Sole of the FDEP during a presentation to the Florida House of 

Representatives, approximately 80% of Florida's most pristine rivers and streams will be deemed impaired based on the 

EPA's proposed criteria, resulting in state and private funds being utilized to treat these healthy water bodies. 

Comment ID 1789-1.001.002 

Author Name: Dozier J. 

Organization: Georgia Association of Water Professionals and Georgia Member Association of the Water Environment Federation 

There are three areas in the proposed rulemaking which we will focus on in this comment letter with which we have 

particular concern. 

I. EPA FAILS TO ESTABLISH CAUSE AND EFFECT 

We recognize it is not a simple task to develop valid phosphorus and nitrogen numeric criteria, especially for flowing 

streams, based on cause and effect relationships. Just because it is not simple does not make it unnecessary. Without 

establishing cause and effect EPA cannot demonstrate that its proposed nutrient standards will have a real beneficial 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2281
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

effect in improving water quality and may in fact cause detriment. 

For Florida, EPA uses a statistical-based approach that assumes all of Florida's flowing waters can be broadly grouped 

into four categories. In order to establish its numeric criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, EPA dismisses the fact that it 

was unable to establish a cause and effect relationship between nutrient concentrations and in-stream impacts: 

"EPA also concluded that a scientifically defensible cause and effect relationship could not be demonstrated with the 

available data and that a distribution based approach was most appropriate" (page 4215). 

It can't be assumed that increasingly stringent nutrient criteria, unlike standards for toxic chemicals, will produce water 

quality improvements. Nutrients, unlike toxic chemicals, are needed at some basic levels for healthy ecosystems and 

the amounts needed vary within each specific waterbody and from one waterbody to another. 

EPA's own Ecological Processes and Effects Committee Science Advisory Board (SAB) recognized the importance of 

establishing cause and effect. In its draft report of January 2010, they stated that "understanding the causative link 

between nutrient levels and impairment is necessary in order to assure that managing for particular nutrient levels will 

lead to desired outcomes." 

Comment ID 1790-1.001.009 

Author Name: Rota M. 

Organization: Gulf Restoration Network 

Additionally, inorganic nitrogen should be specifically addressed. 

Comment ID 1792-1.001.002 

Author Name: Putnam A. 

Organization: United States House of Representatives 

The first set of these regulations are scheduled to be finalized in six months, but there remains a substantial debate in 

the scientific and environmental communities as to the appropriateness of these regulations. Most troubling is the fact 

that Florida's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) states that "compliance will force an investment of billions 

of dollars without environmental benefit." The scientists at DEP further claim that "EPA proposed criteria do not reflect a 

true relationship between nutrient enrichment and the biological health of Florida's surface waters." These startling 

assessments on the EPA proposal illustrates the gap that must be addressed if Floridians are to understand the 

consequences of the proposed requirements. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2282
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1794-1.001.003 

Author Name: Taylor W. 

Organization: US Department of the Interior 

We also offer comments, as an attachment, from the Service's Southeast region, advocating for a cause-and-effect 

basis for all nutrient criteria and a duration and frequency approach that allows for timely corrective action. Our 

comments are as follows: 

Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria: The EPA recommends three approaches for developing numeric nutrient criteria: 

(a) estimating the 25th percentile of all stations; (b) estimating the 75th percentile of reference stations; and (c) 

establishing effects-based criteria by quantifying a stressor-response relationship between nutrients and adverse effects 

on aquatic life. Although we believe the last approach, described in (c), is the most desirable, we recognize it has been 

difficult to develop due to complexities in ecosystem nutrient cycling and the lack of site-specific information. However, 

we recommend that approach be utilized where data is available, and that future modifications to the criteria consider 

collecting data to enable utilization of approach (c). 

Comment ID 1794-1.001.004 

Author Name: Taylor W. 

Organization: US Department of the Interior 

We also recommend that, where there is adequate supporting data, the EPA modify their strategy of defining nutrient 

criteria boundaries to base those boundaries on areas with similar soil chemistry, geology, and hydrogeology. The 

technical comments provide an example of this approach for canals entering Biscayne Bay. Where there is not 

adequate supporting data, we recommend that the EPA collect this data to allow for future modifications to the rule. 

Comment ID 1794-1.001.005 

Author Name: Taylor W. 

Organization: US Department of the Interior 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria and Biological Communities: The Service has some technical concerns about the lack of 

specificity regarding the proposed criteria and how they will sustain biological communities. As mentioned above, a 

regional classification may not be adequate to ensure the proper nutrient balance in Florida Waters. The classification 

should account for the specific biological balance that characterizes each water body or water segment. As mentioned 

above an effects based approach using biological response data is the most certain way to ensure protection of 

biological integrity. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2283
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1794-1.001.027 

Author Name: Taylor W. 

Organization: US Department of the Interior 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comments on USEPA Proposed Nutrient Criteria for Inland Surface Freshwaters 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in South Florida is providing several technical comments on USEPA's proposed 

nutrient criteria for inland surface freshwaters in Florida. The Service has some technical concerns about the lack of 

specificity of these potentially regionally relevant numeric nutrient water quality standards. Therefore, a demonstration 

of confidence surrounding how these standards will sustain biological communities is of interest to USFWS. Because 

nutrients, being requisite to natural system function, do not lend themselves to an analysis of potential effects as would 

typically be assessed using surrogate dose-response relationships, biological response data is the most certain way to 

ensure protection of biological integrity. 

Ultimately, a regional classification approach may not be adequate to ensure the proper nutrient balance in Florida 

waters if it does not account for the specific biological balance that characterizes each unique water body or water 

segment. The revised USEPA approach should a priori justify mechanisms to assess shortcomings in ecological 

assurances. 

Comment ID 1795-1.001.006 

Author Name: Palmer D. 

Organization: Emerald Coast Utility Authority 

The rule is too broad a brush for nutrients and leaves too many unknowns. There should not be a one size fits all rule, 

even for Northwest Florida. In the vast majority of cases in Northwest Florida, the rule is too over protective on certain 

dischargers. It will require entities with permits to meet standards that are not readily obtainable. Others without permits 

will be unaffected, such as non-point, and will continue to provide the majority of nutrients. Billions will be spent with 

little to no improvement. 

Comment ID 1796-1.001.004 

Author Name: Mizrahi C. 

Organization: National Potato Council 

The rule proposed by the EPA applies the same criteria and standards to all bodies of water in Florida, which could 

artificially regulate and harm otherwise healthy ecosystems with naturally high nitrogen or phosphorus contents. 

Comment ID 1796-1.001.005 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2284
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Mizrahi C. 

Organization: National Potato Council 

Florida's existing practices also account for the variable weather patterns in the state, including El Nino and La Nina 

cycles, which cause predictable spikes in nutrient levels. This is another potentially harmful oversight by the EPA. 

Comment ID 1796-1.001.008 

Author Name: Mizrahi C. 

Organization: National Potato Council 

Various environmental groups have shown that the EPA's focus on Nitrogen and Phosphorus as indicators of water 

body impairment is in itself scientifically unsound. The National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, Inc. (NCASI) 

came to the conclusion that other variables such as percent canopy cover and water turbidity are more closely related 

to water quality than total nitrogen or phosphorus. There is not adequate evidence of a direct "stressor-response" 

relationship between the nutrients and water quality to warrant such overarching and strict criteria as proposed by the 

EPA. 

Comment ID 1797-1.001.005 

Author Name: Braswell S. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau 

The EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria are generalized and disregard the diversity within the State of Florida. 

Comment ID 1797-1.001.007 

Author Name: Braswell S. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau 

II. Water Quality Criteria Must Accurately Reflect the Latest Scientific Knowledge 

The CWA, specifically Section 304(a), requires that the EPA establish standards that accurately reflect the "latest 

scientific knowledge."[10] In addition, the EPA's regulations state, in part: 

"... (a) Inclusion of pollutants: (1) States must adopt those water quality criteria that protect the designated use. Such 

criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the 

designated use. For waters with multiple use designations, the criteria shall support the most sensitive use."[11] 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2285
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Beyond federal law and regulation, the EPA has developed and published well defined Guidelines[12] for developing 

water quality criteria and has abided by these guidelines since publication. The EPA failed to follow several significant 

requirements established by these guidelines during development of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, including 

but not limited to: 

"...Criteria should attempt to provide a reasonable and adequate amount of protection with only a small possibility of 

considerable overprotection or underprotection. It is not enough that the criterion is the best estimate given the available 

data. Criteria should be derived only if adequate appropriate data are available to provide reasonable confidence that it 

is a good estimate."[13] 

"...These National Guidelines should be modified whenever sound scientific evidence indicates that a National Criterion 

produced using these Guidelines would probably be substantially overprotective or underprotective of the aquatic 

organisms and their uses on a national basis."[14] 

"...On the basis of all available pertinent laboratory and field information, determine if the criterion is consistent with 

sound scientific evidence. If it is not, another criterion, either higher or lower, should be derived using appropriate 

modifications of these Guidelines."[15] 

The EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria do not establish standards that accurately reflect the latest scientific 

knowledge. In addition, the proposed numeric nutrient criteria do not attempt to provide a reasonable and adequate 

amount of protection with only a small possibility of considerable overprotection or underprotection. 

a.� The EPA's Science Advisory Board 

The EPA's Science Advisory Board met September 9-11, 2009, to review the EPA's draft guidance document, Empirical 

Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation. Following, are several concerns related to comments of the EPA's Science 

Advisory Board (SAB). 

i.� Ignoring the EPA Science Advisory Board Recommendations: The EPA's SAB reviewed the EPA's proposed 

methods for numeric nutrient criteria derivation and informed the EPA that the methods were flawed and were not 

scientifically defensible. The proposed rule essentially ignores the SAB recommendations on methods of developing 

scientifically defensible standards that will accurately regulate nutrients when and where they cause unacceptable 

impacts. For example, the SAB clearly informed the EPA that proper numeric nutrient criteria development and 

application required consideration of habitat differences. The EPA disregarded several habitat variables known to 

control whether/how nutrients impact uses in lakes, streams or canals (depth, scour, light, substrate, floating plants, 

detention time, etc.). 

ii.� No Cause-and-Effect Demonstration: The EPA also disregarded its own SAB and published guidance which very 

clearly stated that water quality standards must be based on a well documented "cause-and-effect" relationship. The 

EPA's proposal admits the canal and stream protection standards are not based on a "cause-and-effect" demonstration; 

instead the 75th percentile concentration occurring in selected pristine waters was used to select the criteria values. 

This approach improperly classifies 25% of pristine streams as nutrient impaired and assumes nutrients are causing 

impairments in all other waters. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2286
 
 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

iii.� No Impairment Threshold Identified: The EPA's SAB informed the EPA that nutrient standards must be set at the 

threshold above which impairment is expected to occur. Several of the proposed standards are not based on any 

documented biological impairment threshold. The range of conditions occurring in non-impaired waters does not 

demonstrate what the impairment threshold is. The EPA's analysis failed to show that higher levels of nutrients would 

impair designated uses. The EPA continues to use "change point" analyses to select criteria values, even after the SAB 

asserted that such an analyses does not predict the biological impairment threshold. 

[10] Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1314 (2002). 

[11] 40 C.F.R. § 131.11 (2005). (emphasis added) 

[12] Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their 

Uses, USEPA 1985. (referred to as "Guidelines" from hereafter). 

[13] Id. at 5. (emphasis added) 

[14] Id. at 18. (emphasis added) 

[15] Id. at 57. (emphasis added) 

Comment ID 1797-1.001.023 

Author Name: Braswell S. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau 

VI. The EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters in General 

The EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria fails to consider the important role nutrients play in achieving and 

maintaining the aquatic health and designated use of a water body. 

In order to establish numeric nutrient criteria that are scientifically defensible, criteria need to be established for 

response variables (e.g., excessive algal biomass, aesthetics and transparency) that are based on impairment of 

designated uses.[46] Nutrients alone do not impair designated uses except for high nitrate concentrations in drinking 

water supplies and the aquatic toxicity associated with ammonia.[47] 

[46]Hydroqual, Hydroqual Comments on EPA's Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing
 

Waters (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596), April 19, 2010, 6. (To view the technical report in its entirety, refer to comments
 

submitted by Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.).
 

[47]Id.
 

Comment ID 1797-1.001.025 

Author Name: Braswell S. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2287
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The use of empirical or mechanistic models that relate nutrient loading to response variable criteria should be used to 

regulate nutrients.[49] 

Mechanistic site-specific models for lakes, rivers, and estuaries are the most reliable and scientifically defensible 

approach to regulating nutrients based on established nutrient response criteria. The cost and time to collect sitespecific data and develop mechanistic models are considerable in complex systems such as estuaries, however can be 

significantly less than the cost of implementing nutrient reductions from both point and nonpoint sources. Ultimately, 

scientifically defensible mechanistic models that truly relate nutrients to the response variables that impact designated 

uses would provide the greatest benefits to the environment and utilize limited funds in the most efficient manner.[50] 

a. Determining the Appropriateness of Proposed Criteria by Quantifying Uncertainty 

The EPA has not sufficiently characterized important aspects of uncertainty in the development of its proposed numeric 

nutrient criteria. As a consequence, the EPA's proposed criteria for flowing waters yield rates of error pertaining to 

designated use attainment decisions so large that the utility of the criteria as a management tool for preventing and 

mitigating impairments of designated uses is severely compromised.[51] 

The EPA should have used a systematic approach, such as the one presented in its own guidance documents and 

consistent with the EPA's systematic planning process, to estimate and address quantifiable uncertainties in its 

evaluation of stressor-response and reference percentile approaches for proposing numeric nutrient criteria, especially 

for flowing waters. Without a systematic process, several key determinations that support the proposed criteria appear 

to be arbitrary, including but not limited to: (a) determining what level of uncertainty in cause-and-effect evidence and 

strength of correlation is acceptable to support "scientifically defensible" criteria; (b) determining what should be done 

when these uncertainties are unacceptably high; (c) selecting an appropriate response variable, especially for flowing 

waters; and (d) developing proposed modified alternative criteria for lakes but not flowing waters.[52] 

If the EPA chooses to reconsider the proposed criteria, it should conduct an uncertainty analysis to quantify expected 

performance of the criteria and inform stakeholders of those expectations.[53] 

[49] Id. at 6. 

[50] Id. at 8. 

[51] National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. ("NCASI"), Analysis and Comments on Environmental 

Protection Agency Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule, April 25, 2010, 

16. (To view the technical report in its entirety, refer to comments submitted by Florida Pulp and Paper Association 

Environmental Affairs, Inc.). 

[52] Id. 

[53] Id. 

Comment ID 1798-1.001.007 

Author Name: Wessell R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2288
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation 

Specific Comments on the EPA Rule 

SCCF supports the development of scientifically grounded standards that incorporate and reflect the ecological diversity 

of Florida's waters. The variability of Florida's landscape and water bodies requires regionally customized approaches 

to the selection and application of water quality standards. We are concerned that the USGS SPARROW model is not 

suitable for this purpose and encourage the continued coordination between the EPA and state DEP to use site specific 

existing and historical data to set numeric targets for water bodies. 

Comment ID 1799-1.001.005 

Author Name: Clement D. 

Organization: Joshua Water Control District 

While this point is detailed in the Florida Association of Special District's comments, it is worth noting that there is no 

relationship between nutrient levels and the biological health of flowing waters. This point was acknowledged by EPA 

during a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Technical Advisory Committee meeting discussing the 

development of numeric criteria for Florida waters. Controlling nutrient levels in flowing waters, especially man-made 

canals, does not control the biological response within a given flowing water. 

Comment ID 1801-1.001.006 

Author Name: Green III K. 

Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District 

2. General numeric nutrient criteria should be based on continuous models and should supplement, rather than replace, 

Florida's existing narrative nutrient criteria. 

a.�Florida's narrative nutrient criteria provide the basis for development of both general and site-specific numeric nutrient 

criteria. Florida water quality standards include two narrative nutrient criteria: 1) "the discharge of nutrients shall 

continue to be limited to prevent violations of other standards contained in this chapter (Fla. Admin. Code chapter 62­

302) and 2) "in no case shall nutrient concentrations be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of 

aquatic flora or fauna" (Fla. Admin. Code 62-302.530 (47)). EPA acknowledges in its proposed rule that it "... has 

interpreted the currently applicable State narrative criterion..." - prevention of an imbalance of flora and fauna. Thus, the 

narrative criterion provided the basis for development of general numeric nutrient criteria. The narrative criteria also 

should continue to be the basis for development of site-specific alternative nutrient criteria where they are needed. The 

narrative criteria provide a sound footing for the use of site-specific data and analyses and general numeric criteria 

should not be used if adequate site-specific data and analyses are available. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2289
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Another significant benefit for retention of the narrative criteria is that they provide the legal foundation for many existing 

Pollutant Load Reduction Goals (PLRGs) and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). PLRGs and TMDLs for nutrients 

have been established for many of Florida's largest aquatic ecosystems. They were based on interpretations of 

Florida's existing narrative nutrient criteria that established site specific nutrient concentration goals and nutrient loading 

limits for Florida's lakes, rivers, streams, and estuaries. Thus, the narrative nutrient criteria have been successfully 

applied in many cases to protect and restore designated uses. Retention of the narrative standard maintains the legal 

basis for these TMDLs. If site-specific numeric nutrient criteria are needed in water bodies with established TMDLs for 

nutrients, then the nutrient concentration targets associated with the TMDLs should automatically replace the general 

numeric nutrient criteria as site-specific alternative criteria. 

b. Florida's existing narrative criteria should be supplemented by general numeric nutrient criteria based on continuous 

models of trophic state. By supplementing the narrative standard with numeric criteria based on continuous models, 

numeric nutrient criteria can be developed for Florida's numerous lakes. Because numeric criteria based on continuous 

models would use site-specific data, they could protect the diversity of trophic states by constraining deviation from the 

natural background condition. As explained below, only a continuous approach can protect and restore the natural 

diversity of trophic states and aquatic biodiversity. The District demonstrates below that the narrative criteria can be 

interpreted rapidly, and inexpensively using site-specific data in continuous models of trophic state, such as the 

morphoedaphic index (Vighi and Chiaudani, 1985) and of response variables, such as the concentration of chlorophyll a 

([Chla]) and transparency. These models would be appropriate for Florida's smaller water bodies. They would provide a 

first approximation for Florida's large aquatic ecosystems. However, for large lakes, rivers and estuaries, where the 

costs of implementation of nutrient load reductions can be quite substantial, sound, site-specific scientific understanding 

should not be supplanted by general numeric criteria - the socioeconomic and environmental consequences of error are 

simply too significant. Each of Florida's large lakes and estuaries has statewide, regional, and, in some cases, national 

significance. It is not prudent to rely on general criteria where such significant natural resources are concerned. 

Management of each of these systems should be based on a scientifically rigorous, site-specific interpretation of the 

narrative criteria. Retention of the narrative criteria would allow replacement of general numeric criteria by site-specific 

criteria when the scientific basis is sufficient for interpretation of the narrative criteria. 

Comment ID 1802-1.001.001 

Author Name: Torres E. 

Organization: City of Casselberry 

EPA issued rigorous numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) on January 15, 2010 for the state of Florida fresh lakes and flowing 

waters including springs, spring runs, canals and streams. The NNC produces a significant challenge both from a 

biological and economic standpoint. 

The NNC originates from basic methods that neglect the existing natural conditions, such as existing naturally high 

chlorophyll levels in the water and the natural sources of nutrients such as atmospheric deposition, soil, rocks, 

vegetation or groundwater. Rainfall itself violates the criteria in many Florida locations. In addition, the criteria should be 

designed to prevent biological impairment. For instance, biological community impacts could occur for a long time frame 

without exceeding the criteria. Conversely, in many instances, natural systems that frequently exceed the criteria may 

still demonstrate a viable, balanced, native ecosystem. Clearly the proposed NNC do not have a reasonable biological 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2290
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

response basis. 

Comment ID 1810-1.001.004 

Author Name: Young L. 

Organization: Clean Water Network of Florida 

Second, while there must be a "sound scientific rational" for water quality standards (40 CFR § 131.11), standards for 

pollutants must be developed even when a simple and direct relationship between pollutant concentrations and 

biological endpoints cannot be set forth with mathematical certainty. Most present water quality standards were 

developed by killing organisms in a laboratory, although no one claims that there is a simple relationship between any 

given pollutant concentration level that will kill test organisms in a laboratory and the concentration of the pollutant that 

will impair water bodies. Outside the laboratory, there are always complicating factors that prevent a simple stressorresponse relationship. To protect the biological integrity of the nation's waters, using reasonable estimates combined 

with various safety factors is unavoidable. In cases in which circumstances have been demonstrated to deviate from the 

norm, development of site-specific standards is possible. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2291
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1810-1.001.009 

Author Name: Young L. 

Organization: Clean Water Network of Florida 

Also, inorganic nitrogen should be specifically addressed. 

Comment ID 1811-1.001.002 

Author Name: Carpinone P. 

Organization: Tampa Electric Company 

TEC believes that any nutrient criteria adopted to protect the state's waters must be scientifically sound and defensible, 

address the relationship between nutrient dose and biological response, and protect current and future water supply 

management strategies. 

Comment ID 1811-1.001.009 

Author Name: Carpinone P. 

Organization: Tampa Electric Company 

This EPA proposal has the potential to impose significant compliance challenges and it is imperative that any such 

proposal be scientifically sound and defensible. Unfortunately, the current proposal does not meet this standard as 

detailed in this letter and other comments received by EPA. We urge EPA to revisit this entire area and to base any 

further efforts on proven science which emphasizes the cause and effect relationship between nutrient loading and 

biological response and utilizes the existing programs to the maximum degree. In summary, TEC believes that EPA's 

proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's freshwaters are not based on the most scientifically sound and 

defensible method and requests EPA adopt a strategy that relies on and utilizes the existing successful TMDL program 

and takes into account actual water body impairment and nutrient dose-biological response relationships that the 

reference water approach cannot address. 

Comment ID 1812-1.001.007 

Author Name: Stephens N. 

Organization: Florida Minerals and Chemistry Council Association 

It is clear that water body-specific evaluation is the best approach to water quality standards, especially where there is 

no demonstration of broadly valid cause-and-effect relationships. EPA recognizes that all water bodies have unique 

nutrient conditions. If EPA is not satisfied with Florida's work in determining appropriate interpretations of the narrative 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2292
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

nutrient standard, then EPA should help, rather than forcing the reallocation of public and private resources to this 

flawed approach. 

Comment ID 1836.001.002 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Because Florida has such diverse aquatic ecosystems, effective numeric nutrient standards must be ecologically 

meaningful, based on the consensus of the scientific community, allow for significant public participation and comment, 

and account for regional and water-body specific variability. The recommendations included in the District's technical 

comments attached hereto will assist in meeting these goals, and are supported by the extensive data collection and 

analysis of water bodies in the District. 

Comment ID 1836.001.004 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

A primary challenge in setting standards for Florida's diverse aquatic ecosystems is developing criteria that are 

ecologically meaningful and flexible so that the specific needs of each water body can be met. Standards that are too 

broad and/or inflexible can result in inadequate protection for some water bodies while others are overly protected, 

wasting precious management dollars. Further, the establishment of incorrect numeric standards or the inability to 

include rule language to allow for flexibility could result in unintended environmental and economic consequences, such 

as: 

- Decreasing discharge quantities from permitted National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) 

facilities and unpermitted nonpoint sources that can reduce the volume and potentially impact the timing of discharged 

water. 

Comment ID 1837-1.001.003 

Author Name: Brom M. 

Organization: PCS Administration, Inc., and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. doing business as PCS Phosphate- White 

Springs 

The exhaustive statistical analysis of the relationship between nutrient concentrations in flowing waters and the 

biological health of those waters done by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and EPA after the 

January 14, 2009 letter is an example of the kind of work that should have been done before a necessity determination 

if such a necessity determination is to be valid. Had that work been properly done in the necessity determination 

process, the undisputed failure of that analysis to show a dose-response relationship between nutrient concentrations 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2293
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

and biological health would have made it obvious that numeric nutrient criteria for those waters are not in fact 

necessary. That statistical analysis goes beyond not supporting a necessity determination; it is an affirmative 

demonstration that numeric nutrient criteria are not necessary for those waters. 

Comment ID 1837-1.001.004 

Author Name: Brom M. 

Organization: PCS Administration, Inc., and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. doing business as PCS Phosphate- White 

Springs 

The proposed rule completely fails to show that the existing narrative standards and regulatory programs in Florida are 

not adequate to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. The proposal simply includes a statement of opinion that the 

proposed rules would be quicker and less cumbersome than the existing systems. That statement of opinion has no 

foundation, is directly contrary to the extraordinary misallocation of resources that will result from the improper 

identification of healthy waterbodies as impaired if these rules are adopted, and is contrary to the inevitable strain on 

governmental resources which would be necessarily caused by regulated interests seeking relief under any of the 

mechanisms proposed in this rule and the citizens of Florida who will have to pay for activities related to the proposed 

rule. Those effects have been analyzed by the FDEP, based on their understanding of EPA's proposed rule. The 

proposed rule effectively, but improperly, reverses the burden of proof under the Clean Water Act from a required 

demonstration that standards are necessary to a requirement that the standards are not necessary to be applied for the 

biological health of a particular water body. That inverted burden of proof would be borne by the regulated community, 

whether PotashCorp or a major city's wastewater treatment works or a small business. The public interest cannot be 

served by turning the Clean Water Act on its head. 

Comment ID 1837-1.001.012 

Author Name: Brom M. 

Organization: PCS Administration, Inc., and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. doing business as PCS Phosphate- White 

Springs 

EPA requested comment on certain of the statistical thresholds used for setting criteria. In the absence of doseresponse relationships, all statistical thresholds are arbitrary and invalid. 

Comment ID 1869-1.001.005 

Author Name: Fumero J. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley on behalf of Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. 

• Region wide eco-mapping is a "one size fits all" approach that does not take into consideration Florida's unique water 

bodies. EPA's regional nutrient criteria ignore the significant variability of Florida's surface waters which may result in 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2294
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

spending money to clean-up water bodies while receiving relatively diminishing returns in terms of the increase in 

environmental resource protection. 

Comment ID 1877.001.002 

Author Name: Gornicki P. 

Organization: Florida Forestry Association 

Our review of this proposal leads us to believe that EPA's approach does not fully recognize the natural variability of 

baseline concentrations of nutrients across Florida. Because EPA's approach tends to paint water bodies with a broad 

brush, many surface waters with naturally high levels of a nutrient, such as phosphorus, are likely to be listed as 

impaired. This result could lead to costly efforts to develop programs to reduce nutrient concentrations to less than what 

naturally occurs. Numeric nutrient criteria must be site specific! 

Comment ID 1877.001.003 

Author Name: Gornicki P. 

Organization: Florida Forestry Association 

Another concern of ours is related to the use of "bio assessments" in determining surface water impairment (or in the 

case of the EPA approach, the lack thereof). Florida DEP was planning to include a two-tier assessment approach in its 

rule, with the first tier being numeric nutrient criteria and a follow-up second tier that was a biological assessment of the 

water body to provide a "biological confirmation" that nutrient concentrations above the numeric standard actually 

resulted in biological impairment of the water body. We believe it is vital that the biological assessment play a major role 

in determining which water bodies are functionally impaired. 

Comment ID 1885.001.020 

Author Name: Connor T. 

Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County 

- EPA argues that a case-by-case interpretation of narrative criteria is not protective but proposes criteria that depend 

on case-by-case implementation of SSACs for protection of uses. 

Comment ID 1891.001.002 

Author Name: Hutchens D. 

Organization: Public Works and Utilities, City of Dunedin 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2295
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Among other items, we are concerned that the-.use of large eco-region mapping does not properly address the high 

degree~of variability that characterizes most watersheds in Florida and in many cases is inappropriate as a basis for 

NNCs . It would appear that smaller eco-regions be defined so that values are more indicative of local conditions as 

opposed to a "one- size fits all" approach . There can be tremendous variability between similar waterbody types, within 

a relatively short distance, which correlate to the variability in geology, soils, water tables, etc. It seems that it would be 

quite onerous to delineate these smaller eco-regions accurately without considerable efforts to analyze and collect the 

necessary information . 

Comment ID 1900.001.004 

Author Name: Gulbinsky E. 

Organization: Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey 

Comments on EPA's Proposed Florida Nutrient WQS Adoption 

The following provides specific comments on EPA's proposed nutrient WQS for Florida: 

I. The Approach Taken to Develop the Nutrient Standards Ignores EPA's Science Advisory Board Recommendations 

and Is Inconsistent with EPA's Guidance for Developing Water Quality Standards 

AEA believes that it is important for EPA to promulgate standards that are consistent with EPA's controlling regulations 

and published peer-reviewed guidance. Deviating from an accepted scientifically-defensible protocol in an effort to 

develop across-theboard numeric standards quickly and inexpensively is ill-advised and unlikely to consistently restore 

and/or maintain designated uses. 

With regard to the development of nutrient standards, EPA has issued several versions of guidance in an effort to 

effectively implement its controlling regulations. The latest rendition --"Nutrient Criteria for Water Quality - Guidance for 

Numeric Approaches" -- was recently subjected to a thorough and probing peer review process on September 9-11, 

2009. During this review, the Science Advisory Board's ("SAB") Ecological Processes and Effects Committee identified 

several critical shortcomings with the proposed guidance. With regard to these comments, many of the guidance's 

approaches were utilized in developing the proposed Florida standards at issue. As detailed more thoroughly in the 

attachment provided, the committee made it abundantly clear that the methods in the guidance were seriously flawed, 

did not demonstrate "cause and effect" and, therefore, were not a "scientifically defensible" basis to establish nutrient 

standards. (See Draft 2010 SAB findings - excerpts attached). Similarly, EPA has identified several threshold 

requirements set forth in its regulations and peer-reviewed guidance on how to properly derive water quality standards. 

(See, "Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and 

Their Uses", USEPA 1985 (hereafter "Guidelines"). - see excerpts attached). Although it would seem fairly obvious, 

EPA should only develop standards that conform to its regulations and implementing guidance. AEA does not believe 

EPA has done so in this case. 

Specifically, these proposed Florida standards deviate from EPA's express requirements and the SAB's 

recommendations on how to develop scientifically defensible standards that will properly regulate nutrients only when 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2296
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

and where they cause unacceptable impacts . Most importantly, in releasing the standards, EPA concedes that (1) the 

proposed standards were not derived from a demonstrated causal relationship (Rule Preamble at 75), (2) the stream 

targets have no connection to a measurable level of impairment (i.e. dissolved oxygen, chl-a level), and (3) the 

proposed numeric criteria do not account for all critical habitat factors known to control whether or how nutrients impact 

uses in lakes, streams or canals (depth, scour, light, substrate, floating plants, detention time, etc.) (Rule Preamble 73­

82) . Collectively, these examples illustrate just a few of the most significant ways that the approach used by EPA to 

derive the standards deviates from the EPA's controlling regulations, EPA's applicable guidance, and the SAB's 

recommendations. Until EPA's approach conforms to these requirements, we believe that the Florida standards are not 

scientifically defensible. 

EPA's proposed standards fail to meet the regulatory framework set forth in the controlling regulations and guidance. In 

so doing, EPA appears willing to sacrifice the principles of scientifically-defensible criteria derivation methodologies for 

an approach that will produce criteria which are unnecessarily stringent. Although a cross-cutting approach is easier 

and quicker to develop, the financial and environmental costs associated with utilizing such an indefensible 

methodology far outweigh the costs of doing it correctly with site-specific data. 

Comment ID 1900.001.013 

Author Name: Gulbinsky E. 

Organization: Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey 

Summary 

EPA's approach will broadly classify waters throughout the state as impaired when they are not, will force communities 

and agricultural operations to reduce nutrients, regardless of demonstrated need, and will result in using energy and 

resources unnecessarily. Predicting that nutrients are causing problems even in areas classified by the state as pristine 

shows this proposal bears no reasonable relationship to actual environmental needs. EPA's "one-size-fits all" proposal, 

in many instances, will produce a net environmental detriment by wasting energy and severely impacting local 

economies. EPA's approach forces communities to bear the burden of correcting EPA's scientific and technical 

shortcomings. This is not a reasonable solution to over-regulation, and violates the Guidelines principles of criteria 

derivation. 

Comment ID 1901.001.002 

Author Name: Hall S. 

Organization: 

Current standards in Florida are inadequate to protect the environment from severe water pollution. The current 

narrative standards are completely inadequate. The current narrative standards are actually causing water pollution to 

become worse each year. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2297
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

I believe that Florida could meet these nutrient standards if it would begin to carefully regulate fertilizer applications. 

One of the major problems is that Florida has failed to take a strong stand on fertilizer runoff. This is particularly true in 

the South Eastern part of the state where regulation of fertilizer for homeowners is non-existent. At the same time 

Florida could do a much better job of controlling runoff from houses and improving standards for Sceptic Tanks. We 

also need to work on how we dispose of manure from horses and CAFOs. 

Comment ID 1923.001.002 

Author Name: Knight R. 

Organization: City of Winter Park 

3. The City of Winter Park believes this rule, as proposed, has elements that are not realistic and in many cases will not 

be achievable. This is primarily due to the fact that the proposed rule does not take into account the extreme variability 

in rainfall and runoff patterns, lake morphology, soil nutrient content and stream ecology that occurs in Florida. The City 

fears that implementation of this rule in its current form will result in funds that are currently being used judiciously for 

effective stormwater management being diverted to unproductive activities such as justifying variance requests, legal 

action, defending against enforcement actions or trying to implement impractical management strategies in an effort to 

meet the rule. 

Comment ID 1925.001.001 

Author Name: Thorn L. 

Organization: Walton County Farm Bureau 

Please accept the following written comments on behalf of Walton County Farm Bureau. Our primary concern with the 

proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida is that the proposed regional nutrient criteria ignore the 

variability of Florida's surface waters. 

Florida is a diverse state, with several soil types and distinct water bodies. As an agricultural association, we agree that 

clean water is necessary for successful production. However, determining the proper numerical water quality standard 

requires sound science and site specific criteria. Without site specific numeric nutrient criteria, healthy water bodies will 

be deemed impaired and resources will be wasted attempting to make those water bodies meet nutrient concentrations 

they would not naturally meet due to their natural diversity . 

Comment ID 1943.001.001 

Author Name: Woehlcke L. 

Organization: 

1. I believe the rule fails to relate the proposed standards to the outcomes established in the clean water act. Proxy 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2298
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

values such as the nutrient standards are used because of their general relationship to conditions that affect water 

recreation and fish and wildlife. No quantitative expectations are established as to what conditions for water recreation 

and fish and wildlife are acceptable for meeting the goals of the act nor are quantitative expectations as to the effect 

that meeting the standards have on performance in achieving these goals provided. There is a tendency to treat 

restoration or non-anthropogenic affected values as the targets but there is no reason why Floridians can not establish 

expectations of use and types of wildlife and trophic conditions that are different from these. After all there are 17+ 

million of us. This is especially true for canals in south florida as they are creations of man primarily for drainage and 

water supply purposes. 

Comment ID 2018-6.001.004 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

16. The rule should incorporate some ability to refine the criteria if the criteria are found to not be representative for a 

particular waterbody due to natural or regional (i.e., not anthropogenic) influences. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.010 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

F. The Statistical Manipulation of Data Cannot Replace Cause-and-Effect 

It is a simple truth that nature is hard to quantify. There is no way to accurately predict the concentration of a given 

parameter at all places and at all times within a waterbody. Water quality sampling may provide a snapshot as to what 

water quality was like on the day at the location and under the conditions when the samples were taken but cannot 

characterize water quality throughout the waterbody and under changing conditions brought about by weather, season 

or time of day. Statistical analyses and models may be used to try to find patterns in the noise of such dynamic 

systems, but they often simply quantify how little is known about water quality within a lake, stream or estuary. 

EPA's failure to establish a dose-response relationship between nutrients and biological variables in streams illustrates 

this point. Both the Florida DEP and EPA performed regression analyses between nutrient (TP, TN) concentrations and 

a variety of biologicaJl response variables (e.g. stream condition index or SCI) and found an insufficient relationship 

between the dose (nutrient concentration) and response (biologicall parameters) from which numeric nutrient criteria 

could be derived (R2 < 0.5). Very little of the variation observed in the biological data was explained by nutrient 

concentrations.. In this instance, statistics essentially confirmed how little is understood about the effect of nutrients on 

stream biology-particularly when attempting to apply a univariate: approach to a multivariate system. 

Consequently, models and statistics must be used judiciously as tools to assist informed. decision making. The tail must 

not wag the dog such that statistical manipulation of limited data is used to construct a result with little or no relationship 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2299
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

to the scientific: principals the agency is attempting to model. Running data through a model or applying a statistical tool 

cannot create physical and chemical relationships that do not exist, or that cannot be measured, and by no means 

anoints the mathematical manipulation as "scientifically defensible" or "sound scientific rationale" as required by EPA 

regulations. Unfortunately, as discussed below, the proposed rule is rife with examples of exactly this approach. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.033 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

B. Necessity Determination - January 14,2009 

As noted earlier, there was no legitimate basis for EPA to override Florida's water quality standards program-especially 

after having just approved the Florida DEP's numeric: nutrient criteria development plan a few months earlier-as 

memorialized in the January 14, 2009, letter from Benjamin H. Grumbles, former Assistant Administrator, to Florida 

DEP Secretary Michael Sole, to wit: "This letter constitutes a determination under the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 

303(c)(4)(B) that new or revised water quality standards for nutrients are necessary to meet the requirements of the 

CWA for the State of Florida." 

The January 14,2009, decision is unsupportable in that: 

• No scientifically defensible methodology exists for the establishment of statewide: or regional numeric nutrient criteria 

for Florida due to the chemical, physical" geologic, geographic and climatic variability among Florida surfaces waters. 

• The establishment of scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria was not: feasible by January of 2010, and is not 

feasible by January of 2011, regardless of whether the waters are fresh or marine, lakes or flowing waters; the 

proposed criteria confirm that scientifically defensible criteria cannot be developed in such. a short timeframe if at all 

due to the lack of a cause and effect relationship; 

• The criteria will be applied to all Florida surface waters without regard to geomorphology, geology or physical 

alteration (often pre-dating the Clean Water Act) e.g., box-cut canals, reservoirs, blackwater streams, and reclaimed 

lakes following mining. 

• To date, and after nearly nine years of criteria development, Florida's water quality experts have been unable to 

establish a sufficient dose-response relationship to derive numeric nutrient criteria for Florida surface waters; EPA has 

confessed that the agency was also unable to establish a cause and effect relationship from which criteria could be 

derived. 

• EPA recommends that the dose-response approach to developing numeric nutrient criteria but set arbitrary deadlines 

for proposing statewide criteria before which it will be physically impossible for the Florida DEP or EPA to pursue the 

doseresponse approach. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.038 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2300
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: CF Industries 

Nutrients are not toxic substances and the derivation of protective criteria must be based upon a scientifically defensible 

methodology that balances the concentration or load of nutrients necessary for a healthy well-balanced biological 

community and that concentration or load that is no longer protective of designated use. EPA's proposed criteria do not 

meet this fundamental element of proper nutrient criteria. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.044 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

4. Fundamentally Flawed Logic 

As noted, it is illogical for EPA to state that a proper interpretation of Florida's narrative nutrient criterion is time 

consuming and resource intensive-precluding Florida's DEP form pursing a waterbody by waterbody approach-yet 

contend that the federal agency has done just that for all fresh waters within the State of Florida. EPA was correct in 

stating that determining adequate cause-and-effect may take several years. Consequently, EPA could not have 

accomplished this resource intensive and time consuming task in the timeframe available to the agency. CF respectfully 

asserts that the critical deficiencies and fatal flaws in EPA's proposed rule bears witness to this simple truth. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.052 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Many of the methods used by USEPA in the proposed rule are not based on scientifically justifiable assumptions, and 

particularly they do not develop an appropriate cause-and-effect relationship. Cause-and-effect relationships are the 

cornerstone of most water quality standards, particularly toxicants, and have been used successfully to develop 

legitimate scientifically based criteria. But, as has been pointed out by USEPA own Science Advisory Board (SAB), the 

Agency's current methods and the resulting numeric nutrient criteria do not sufficiently reflect a cause-effect 

relationship. "The absence of a direct causative relationship between stressor and response is one of the most serious 

issues raised by the committee." (SAB, Draft Advisory Report, 2010). The approaches used by USEPA for developing 

numeric nutrient criteria for Florida ignore those recommendations. 

The USEPA has proposed grossly restrictive criteria for many of Florida's systems not in need of protection (particularly 

pristine reference systems) and will actually cause unimpaired systems to be declared impaired. This will require the 

State and affected parties to spend valuable resources and time addressing problems where none exist. There are 

numerous technical flaws in the USEPA approach, including: 

1. Overall, there is an inadequate classification of Florida's diverse systems of lakes streams, springs and estuaries, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2301
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

resulting in analyses that have low or in some cases no statistical relationship between cause and effect; 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.062 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Eutrophication Problems are Complex 

The process of eutrophication at first appears to be a simple relationship between load or concentration of nutrients and 

a response. But as Dr. Ken Reckhow, chair of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) committee, has pointed out in his TMDL presentation at TMDL 2002 in Phoenix, Arizona (Reckhow et al., 2002) 

it is anything but straightforward (Figure 1). 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. The various cause and effect relationships in the 

Eutrophication Process showing multiple points along the chain that may respond (Source: Ken Reckhow, 2002). See 

original comment letter. 

The complexity of the process is overlain on the geologic, hydrologic and ecologic background, and thus there is a 

mosaic of effects, which mayor may not be expressed in the same way even in seemingly similar situations. This is a 

problem for scientists studying the process, and even more so for regulators trying to simplify the process in order to 

apply simple models for regulatory purposes. Depending on the expression of nutrient impacts, it is difficult to decide 

which model or approach to use (Figure 2, Reckhow, 2002). It may be that for individual systems a single empirical 

model will work well-one that adequately relates nutrients directly to a measurable response such as an increase in 

chlorophyll a, as can be the case in certain lakes. However, because of geological, hydrological or biological 

differences, and other water quality variables, the expression in a similar system can be totally different. Thus, other 

systems may require regulation based on hypoxic conditions, whereas in still others hypoxia may be a naturally 

occurring event. Simple univariate empirical methods will not be applicable for all situations. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. Circles represent different relationships where 

models can be applied to determine various aspects of the Eutrophication chain of events (Reckhow, 2002). See 

original comment letter. 

The diverse physiography thus poses challenges in trying to regulate nutrient water quality within the State. Overlain on 

this complex background is an even more complex eutrophication process, making the proper regulation of surface 

water nutrients a daunting task. Nonetheless, in the last few years, the State of Florida has made significant progress in 

developing scientifically based numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's waters. To date, however, scientifically valid criteria 

have been developed for only a relatively few of Florida's waters, and numeric criteria do not comprehensively cover all 

waters. At the same time, the USEPA (USEPA, 2010a - FR:75 No. 16:4175) has moved forward on its court-mandated 

schedule[1] and has developed its own proposal for numeric nutrient water quality standards for Florida. USEPA has 

erroneously determined that the State's efforts at curbing problems from nutrients were insufficient to "protect applicable 

designated uses". In fact much progress has been made in Florida, possibly more so than any other state in the nation, 

towards developing comprehensive numeric nutrient criteria. The USEPA's proposed rule for Florida waters, which SER 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2302
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

asserts is not scientifically defensible, will result in many of Florida's reference water bodies to be declared impaired. 

This action by USEPA will only delay the State's ongoing actions by diverting valuable economic and manpower 

resources to dealing with non-existent impairment problems in lieu of solving real water quality issues in the State. 

USEPA has made claims that Florida's program, through its admittedly comprehensive regulatory framework was 

"insufficient to ensure protection of applicable designated use" (USEPA, 2010a). SER believes these claims are 

unfounded and erroneous. As pointed out above, the process is exceedingly complex. In spite of that complexity, 

numerous examples exist of large-scale systems in Florida where control of significant nutrient sources has been 

achieved by FDEP and other agencies within Florida, and the systems are in a quantifiable recovery sequence. SER 

presents some examples below. 

[1] U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division . 2009. Case: 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS. 

Document 90-2 . Filed 08/25/2009. (consent decree)] 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.067 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Florida methods highlighted in NAS TMDL Methods review (2001) 

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee to assess the scientific basis of the TMDL approach in their 

review of the TMDL process in 2001 (NAS, 2001) recommended to USEPA that the stressor-response relationship is 

fundamental to measuring whether a water body can meet is designated use. Specifically they stated 

"The criterion used to measure whether the condition of a water body supports its designated use can be positioned at 

different points along the causal chain connecting stressors (such as land use activities) to biological responses in a 

water body." 

This recommendation is highlighted because throughout the history of the Clean Water Act the methodologies applied 

by USEPA in developing water quality criteria to protect designated uses from excess organic materials (e.g. BOD) and 

toxins have followed this protocol. 

The NAS committee also recommended a two-tier approach for managing the TMDL process, where water bodies are 

first put on a "suspected" list and then after verification are put on a confirmed list for management under the 

appropriate regulatory actions. The NAS further recognized that the State of Florida's program for its two-list process 

under its Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) for determining impaired waters, the first in the nation, is the preferred 

methodology for the listing-delisting process for impaired waters. While some may view this approach as tedious, it 

ensures that sound science is belnq brought to bear on the appropriate waters and that there is defendable evidence to 

justify the designations (which in turn justify the allocation of often substantial public and private financial resources). 

The nutrient criteria program proposed by USEPA will negate the progress made under this system and will replace it 

with an arbitrary and unscientific method for designating surface waters impaired, leading to the erroneous application 

of an "impaired" label to systems where no biological imbalance exists. Florida can ill afford such resource 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2303
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

mismanagement. 

USEPA has stated in its proposal that the basic analytical approaches for nutrient criteria development include stressorresponse relationship, reference condition approach and mechanistic modeling. All approaches should rely on the 

derivation a cause-response relationship. USEPA's approach in this proposal, especially the downstream protective 

values and the reference stream approaches described in more detail below, do not use or rely on a cause-response 

relationship. USEPA presents only a proposed causal level, i.e. a target nutrient concentration, without any scientifically 

valid relationship or response variable to justify the level selected for many of appointed relationships in its current 

proposal. 

Science Advisory Board Report 

Recently, in a review of USEPA's draft guidance document titled Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation 

(guidance) USEPA's own Science Advisory Board (SAB) criticized the agency's continued reliance on methods not 

based on sound science. USEPA has used these rejected methods in this proposal. Some key findings by the SAB that 

directly relate to the current USEPA proposal for numeric nutrient criteria are: 

1. USEPA's guidance should provide more information for data needed to characterize other stressors and constant 

variables (e.g. high dissolved organic: carbon). 

2. USEPA's guidance focuses on total nitrogen and total phosphorus. Additional consideration should be given to the 

inorganic forms because the response to concentrations (and loads) occurs primarily in response to the inorganic 

forms. 

3. It is not clear why USEPA did not include more information on mechanistic models, because these models can 

integrate information on the major ecosystem processes to derive quantitative estimates of effects. 

4. The absence of a direct causative relationship between stressor and response is one of the most serious issues 

raised. 

5. The reason that load-response models and not empirical stressor-response models are used is that they obviate the 

need for numeric nutrient criteria because they directly link nutrient load to response variables that represent water 

quality impairments. In other words, if an appropriate load-response model is available that predicts the eutrophication 

variable in a dose-response relationship, such as dissolved oxygen or chlorophyll a in response to load, an empirical 

stressor-response model is not necessary. 

6. Single variable stressor-response relationships that explain a substantial amount of variation are likely to be 

uncommon for most aquatic systems (in particular streams). In other words, univariate relationships cannot adequately 

explain complex multivariate interactions of physical, chemical and biological characteristics that define aquatic 

ecosystems. 

7. Numeric nutrient criteria developed and implemented without consideration of system-specific conditions (e.g., from a 

classification based on site types with no response variable, such as the Reference Condition approach) can lead to 

management actions that may have negative social and economic and unintended environmental consequences 

without any additional environmental protection or benefit. 

Many of the SAB comments are exactly the same issues we and others in the scientific community are raising with the 

USEPA relative to the current rule proposal. USEPA continues to move forward using methods that do not have the 

support of its own scientific advisory committee. 

USEPA also has claimed that its proposal will result in a more streamlined approach to water quality management 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2304
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

within the state. SER believes the opposite is true. Because the USEPA's proposal will result in many of the State's 

most pristine waters being declared impaired, the current proposal will force the use of Site Specific Alternative Criteria 

(SSAC's), which will be a more intense and expensive exercise than the State's existing approaches. This will force the 

State and the regulated community to spend even more money needlessly in developing management alternatives for 

systems where none is necessary. In turn, this diversion of limited resources will reduce available funding and at the 

same time de-prioritize restoration of waters that actually suffer from impairment. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.069 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

General Comments on Proposed Numeric Criteria 

USEPA claims that it used best available science to estimate protective concentrations. This simply is not the case. In 

fact, the inadequacies and problems with many of the methods used in developing the proposed numeric criteria have 

been identified by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) in its recent review of EPA's latest guidance. Of particular note is 

the SAB comment that there is a conceptual problem concerning the selection of nutrient concentrations as a stressor 

variable. The SAB stated" A basic conceptual problem concerning selection of nutrient concentrations as stressor 

variables (as illustrated in the Guidance) is that nutrient concentrations directly control only point-in-time, point-in-space 

kinetics, not peak or standing stock plant biomass. " This key conceptual issue brings to question the whole concept of 

regulation by concentration rather than load (which is the foundation and reasoning of the TMDL ("L for LOAD") 

program). As pointed out above, the SAB anticipates the stressor-response relationship will lead to results not 

scientifically justifiable, such as many of the relationships inherent in USEPA's current proposal. 

Another key issue recognized by the SAB is the inappropriateness of using total nutrient concentrations (Le., TN and 

TP) rather than their representative inorganic forms. The validity of this issue has been argued for and recognized by 

scientists for decades (Eisenreich and Armstrong, 1977), but unfortunately it has not gained regulatory application, 

presumably because TN and TP are conceptually simpler in comparison. However, if we are to approach the issue from 

a scientific point of view, inorganic forms must be considered in order to make progress. USEPA repeats erroneous 

assumptions by ignoring the fact that biological responses are best predicted using inorganic and available forms of 

nutrients and not the total form of the nutrient, even though it is widely accepted that an unknown portion of TN and TP 

is refractory (i.e. not available). This error adds to the Agency's inability to derive simplistic concentration/load 

responses. (Note that it also adds to the overall cost of control without additional benefit.) This mechanistic concept of 

focusing on the available fraction, i.e. the dissolved or unassociated reactive portion of a pollutant is commonly used in 

dealing with responses to toxics, such as metals, because it is well established that many factors (such as organics and 

hardness) alter the relationship between concentration and biological response for these dose-toxic materials. It is no 

less important that we recognize the same type of phenomena occur with nutrients. We must account for these factors 

by developing scientific relationships that face reality rather than an overly conservative approach that has a high 

margin of error. We describe below (section on Florida Lake DPV) why the state-wide approach based on TN and TP 

will not work. 

The Florida DEP in its recent comments has also indicated that, particularly for nitrogen, the inorganic forms of nutrients 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2305
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

should be considered from a regulatory perspective (see further discussion below). 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.072 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

With regard to mechanistic models, we understand that the USEPA has made efforts to apply its peer reviewed model, 

AQUATOX, for developing numeric nutrient criteria, but these efforts have not been made public as of this date. We 

recommend that it finalize those results and properly consider those findings within the context of this significant 

regulatory proposal. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.087 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Our basis for this conclusion is as follows: 

The State of Florida has sound scientifically based programs in place to address nutrient impact issues within the state. 

The USEPA's presumption that the State has failed to provide sufficient protection for flowing streams within the State 

of Florida is invalid. Further, the assertion by USEPA that the State is progressing too slowly in developing nutrient 

criteria and the management of nutrients in its surface waters is also erroneous. 

The methods used by the USEPA do not adequately classify the systems within the State for a sufficient scientific 

analysis. While the State of Florida has made efforts to improve water body classifications, there are still excessive 

consolidation of systems even within their approach. The classification schemes used by both the State of Florida and 

USEPA do not completely account for the broad spectrum of Florida's unique natural systems such as springs and 

sand-hill lakes in Florida, nor account for existing uses in manmade lakes and canals. The USEPA has used methods 

that do not demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and impairment, a key criticism of USEPA's 

own SAB committee charged with review of the Agency's methods. 

The USEPA continues to utilize methods that are not based in sound scientific principles and have not produced 

statistically defensible cause and effect relationship between stressor and response. 

The USEPA continues to ignore the fact that the eutrophication response in many systems is not simply dependent on 

nutrient concentrations. In fact, nutrients are rarely the stressors, but rather the eutrophication process is initiated by 

nutrients, which may result in stressed conditions, typically because of low dissolved oxygen. Numerous multivariate 

factors contribute to the ultimate expression of a nutrient impact, and simple nutrient criteria, based on empirical 

univariate relationships for large groups of waterbodies, particularly streams, is simply not possible. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2306
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The USEPA continues to ignore existing mechanistic methods that can be used to develop sound site specific nutrient 

criteria which can be used to effectively control eutrophication and develop site specific criteria that are based in tested 

and proven scientific principles. 

The methods used by the EPA to derive its proposed criteria were not based on scientifically justifiable assumptions, do 

not result in scientifically defensible endpoints, and, therefore, represent a flawed, non-scientific approach. The USEPA 

should work with the FDEP in improving its current TMDL and BMAP programs, which provide sufficient mechanisms to 

regulate nutrients within the State of Florida. 

Comment ID 2233.001.006 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

3. EPA's proposed rule will not accelerate the protection or restoration of Florida's waters. 

CF is concerned that EPA's rule is based on a false premise that establishment of stringent one-size-fits-all nutrient 

WQS will somehow promote faster protection of waters "that are either unimpaired or need protection or have been 

listed as impaired and require loading reductions." (Agency Detennination Regarding Florida at 4182) It would seem 

more likely that the adoption of criteria that will result in the listing of nearly all of Florida's streams, including those that 

are biologically healthy and meeting their designated use, will merely exacerbate current surface water restoration and 

protection programs. 

CF believes the net effect would be to pull limited resources away from those waterbodies that need our attention most. 

Unnecessary allocation to waterbodies that do not suffer from impairment is an imprudent waste of limited public 

resources. De-prioritizing priority waters will only be counterproductive. 

CF believes a more practical and defensible approach to protecting waters that are unimpaired or otherwise in need of 

protection today would be to back-stop existing nutrient levels against increases that could result in impairment. In other 

words, where necessary and appropriate, nutrient criteria could be set at existing levels in unimpaired waterbodies, 

particularly streams, as long as such waterbodies are biologically healthy (e .g ., maintaining healthy Stream Condition 

Index [SCI] scores). 

Comment ID 2394.001.003 

Author Name: Hamel R. 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

FIRST, We feel EPA's approach does not adequately consider Florida's "unique and complex" surface waters! 

In reviewing EPA's proposed criteria, we are concerned that the EPA is taking "too broad/ too general" an approach! 

Our citrus growers have learned from experience . . .that water body chemistry differs greatly. . . from Lake Trafford . . 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2307
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

.to Lake Okeechobee and to the Caloosahatchee River! We feel that the numeric nutrient criteria being set by 

regulatory agencies must be "scientifically based and validated" by water body type and by location . We have "added 

concerns" regarding "the SCIENCE" and "modeling" used by EPA . . .which differs from that of Florida's DEP! According 

to FDEP Secretary, Michael Sole, "EPA's proposed criteria do not reflect a true relationship between nutrient 

enrichment and the biological health of Florida's surface waters." 

We respectfully request that EPA takes time to work with FDEP to "scientifically" validate the proposed criteria before 

imposing them on Florida's surface waters since they will significantly impact our state's farmers, businesses and 

citizens. 

Comment ID 2395.001.005 

Author Name: Hauck A. 

Organization: Council of Civic Associations 

Second, the EPA needs to be reminded that they decided that different regions of the state should have different values 

for surface waters because the inherent environmental differences in those regions. In other words, the EPA recognizes 

that various parts of the State are essentially different ecosystems. Well, why not look at the surface water systems 

within each region the same way? Don't just look at the lakes and streams, but also factor in the estuaries so that a 

holistic approach is taken; an ecosystem. 

Response 

Comment IDs: 0509-1.001.003, 0579.001.005, 0755.001.002 

Response: EPA has recognized the work that Florida has done on water quality issues in the State. Please refer to the TSD and 

preamble. 

Comment ID: 0997.001.006 

Response: EPA provides detailed information about how nutrients impact waters (see the preamble). In addition, the TSD provides 

detailed descriptions about the methods used and the decision-making process for establishing the final criteria. EPA considered the 

use of a variety of models, including SPARROW for estuarine DPVs and has deferred finalizing estuary DPVs to be included with 

the estuary criteria development. EPA recognizes the concern of the commenters about the application of the numeric nutrient 

criteria to reclaimed water. EPA notes that numeric nutrient criteria will apply to all Class I and Class III inland surface waters as 

designated by FDEP. Current Florida regulations would apply with respect to stormwater treatment or reclamation ponds that are 

designated as Class I or III. Similarly, reclaimed water that is used for irrigation and other surface applications would be subject to 

any current FDEP regulations, such as reasonable assurance requirements, that apply. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2308
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment IDs: 0545.001.002, 0567.001.006, 0700.001.002, 0717.001.009, 0723.001.005, 0749.001.002, 0750.001.002, 

0793.001.003, 0826.001.003, 0863.001.003, 0864.001.005, 0997.001.006, 1051.001.004, 1063.001.008, 1165.001.002, 

1219.001.004, 1284.001.004, 1333.001.007, 1371-1.001.008, 1431-1.001.045, 1443-1.001.003, 1477-1.001.002, 1482-1.001.004, 

1532-1.001.004, 1646-1.001.002, 1794-1.001.004, 1798-1.001.007, 1836.001.002, 1836.001.004, 1891.001.002, 2395.001.005 

Response: EPA agrees that criteria should reflect differences in waterbodies across the State. EPA has carefully considered 

differences due to geological and hydrological patterns and has developed the nutrient regions for stream criteria, and classified 

lakes according to color and alkalinity (see TSD). Criteria have been developed specifically for areas of the State in which the 

geology is naturally rich in phosphorus. In cases in which the classifications used by EPA for streams and for lakes does not 

account for the natural expectations for a particular waterbody, EPA points to the federal SSAC process as the appropriate 

procedure for developing criteria that are appropriately site-specific. See preamble and TSD for more detail. 

Comment IDs: 0767.001.003, 0769.001.004, 0822.001.004, 0864.001.003, 0888.001.004, 0898-1.001.006, 0899.001.004, 

0908.001.001, 0934.001.001, 0977.001.001, 1027.001.004, 1040.001.003, 1128.001.004, 1128.001.006, 1217-2.001.004, 

1229.001.004, 1230.001.003, 1260-1.001.002, 1282.001.002, 1287-1.001.002, 1334.001.004, 1360-1.001.001, 1474-1.001.046, 

1477-1.001.009, 1480-1.001.006, 1549.001.002, 1560.001.001, 1561.001.001, 1565-1.001.004, 1647-1.001.018, 1700-1.001.002, 

1712-1.001.004, 1725-1.001.011, 1729.001.010, 1767-1.001.005, 1782-1.001.054, 1794-1.001.005, 1794-1.001.027, 1795­

1.001.006, 1796-1.001.004, 1797-1.001.005, 1869-1.001.005, 1877.001.002, 1900.001.013, 1925.001.001, 2394.001.003 

Response: EPA has carefully considered differences due to geological and hydrological patterns and has developed the nutrient 

regions for stream criteria, and classified lakes according to color and alkalinity (see TSD). Criteria have been developed 

specifically for areas of the State in which the geology is naturally rich in phosphorus. In cases in which the classifications used by 

EPA for streams and for lakes does not account for the natural expectations for a particular waterbody, EPA points to the federal 

SSAC process as the appropriate procedure for developing criteria that are appropriately site-specific. EPA also has provided for a 

one-time site-specific modification of lake TN and TP criteria (see preamble). Please see the preamble with respect to TMDLs and 

the SSAC process. 

Comment IDs: 0589.001.031, 0883.001.004 

Response: EPA will finalize a rule for waterbodies in South Florida in 2011. The current rule does not address waterbodies in 

South Florida. Also, please see the preamble for waters in Florida for which the rule applies. The issue that the commenter brings 

up illustrates why EPA is using the approaches for numeric nutrient criteria it has selected and are provided in detail in the TSD. 

EPA notes that Florida has a rich set of data, but there are examples like Palm Beach County, that lack local data or reference 

conditions. 

Comment ID: 1005.001.003 

Response: EPA will propose a rule for estuaries, coastal waters and waterbodies in South Florida in 2011. The current rule does not 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2309
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

address waterbodies in South Florida. 

Comment IDs: 0663.001.003, 0743.001.007, 0896-2.001.009, 0997.001.004, 1056.001.002, 1079.001.002, 1119.001.003, 

1140.001.002, 1141.001.007, 1198.001.002, 1464-1.001.004, 1810-1.001.004 

Response: EPA promulgated these criteria to protect Florida’s lakes, streams, and springs from the adverse effects of nitrogen and 

phosphorus pollution. In this action, EPA has interpreted and quantified Florida’s existing narrative criteria (at rule 62­

302.530(47)(b), F.A.C) for nutrients, which will provide the State with an important baseline for monitoring and assessment, a basis 

for pollution permit limits and best management practices to limit nonpoint pollution, and targets for remediating poor water quality 

due to nitrogen or phosphorus pollution. EPA employed the principles of sound science using the best available scientific 

information. 

EPA’s guiding principles in deriving numeric water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus are that they be based on a sound 

scientific rationale and be protective of the state’s designated uses (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)). EPA engaged scientific experts within 

and outside the Agency to carefully consider the best available data and scientific information in support of the Agency’s final rule. 

EPA did not consider factors unrelated to the science or designated uses, such as cost to attain the water quality standards, because 

they were contrary to the CWA and Agency’s implementing regulations that emphasize and isolate the roles of science and 

protectiveness in the decision-making process. 

EPA put into practice its standards for scientific defensibility for its final rule, which are consistent with the generally accepted 

principles of scientific integrity practiced within the scientific community. These principles include: collaboration with scientific 

experts within and outside EPA; the use of the best available scientific data and information; conducting an external, independent 

peer review of EPA’s methods and approaches; inviting public feedback; creating a transparent record of scientifically-based 

decisions; ensuring consistency with EPA peer-reviewed and published technical guidance; and reproducibility of EPA’s analyses 

and results. The combination of all of these factors yields a final rule that EPA based on sound science, with confidence that the 

rule will provide the intended protections for Florida’s unique and sensitive aquatic resources. 

EPA collaborated and consulted extensively with scientists from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration to ensure that the best available scientific data and methods were used in 

EPA’s analyses. In developing this rule, EPA worked with FDEP scientists to ensure that available and reliable data on nutrients 

collected in the State of Florida were assessed and that scientific methods appropriately took into account the diversity of 

waterbodies in Florida. EPA conducted an external, independent scientific peer review of those methods following EPA’s own Peer 

Review Handbook. The results of this peer review are available in the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, in the January 2010 

proposal and August 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, EPA invited public feedback on the

 scientific methods and approaches, so that the Agency could thoroughly consider and evaluate additional views. In the final rule, 

EPA has continued to provide a transparent record of the Agency’s scientifically based decision-making process by providing to the 

public the scientific methods, approaches, and data EPA used to support its final rule. This record can be used to verify and 

reproduce EPA’s promulgated criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2310
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID: 0540.001.001 

Response: EPA has carefully considered differences due to geological and hydrological patterns and has developed the nutrient 

regions for stream criteria, and classified lakes according to color and alkalinity (see TSD). Criteria have been developed 

specifically for areas of the State in which the geology is naturally rich in phosphorus. In cases in which the classifications used by 

EPA for streams and for lakes does not account for the natural expectations for a particular waterbody, EPA points to the federal 

SSAC process as the appropriate procedure for developing criteria that are appropriately site-specific. EPA also has provided for a 

one-time site-specific modification of lake TN and TP criteria (see preamble). 

EPA does not agree that 80% of pristine waters would be considered impaired and notes that the commenter did not provide data or 

analysis to support this position. 

EPA does not agree that the rule imposes unrealistic goals. EPA's obligation is to provide criteria that are based on sound science 

and protect the designated uses of all affected waterbodies in Florida, and in this rule, EPA has provided such criteria for streams, 

lakes, and springs (see preamble). 

Comment IDs: 0579.001.002, 0653.001.002, 0885.001.002, 1045.001.004, 1787-1.001.005, 1787-1.001.006 

Response: EPA received a variety of comments arguing that no cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological 

responses had been established and, therefore, that criteria for nutrients will not protect designated uses nor will the reduction of 

nutrients result in predictable environmental improvements. EPA considered these and other comments. As shown in the 

preamble, there is a well established, sizeable body of scientific knowledge including both experimental and observational studies, 

including in Florida, that has unequivocally established a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses in 

fresh water lotic ecosystems, including an effect on the balance of natural aquatic flora and fauna (e.g., Elwood et al.1981, Bothwell 

1985, Peterson et al. 1985, Moss et al. 1989, Dodds and Gudder 1992, Rosemond et al. 1993, Bowling and Baker 1996, Bourassa 

and Cattaneo 1998, Biggs 2000, Francoeur 2001, Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002, Notestein et al. 2003, Slavik et al. 

2004, Gaiser et al. 2005, Cross et al. 2006, Mulholland and Webster 2010). See also final rule preamble and final rule TSD. EPA 

has concluded from this body of scientific knowledge that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and 

detrimental biological responses exists and that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement. EPA received related 

but distinct comments that stressor-response relationships were insufficient to derive nutrient criteria in Florida. EPA considered a 

range of stressor-response analyses for deriving nutrient criteria in Florida and concluded that there was a lack of the necessary 

combination of data regarding potentially confounding factors that influence the empirically estimated relationship between 

nutrients and response variables to support the use of the stressor-response methodology in this context. Therefore, for the final 

rule, EPA utilized the reference condition approach to derive numeric criteria for Florida streams as described in previously 

published and peer-reviewed national nutrient criteria guidance. Furthermore, EPA utilized a stressor-response approach when 

deriving criteria for lakes. 

Comment IDs: 0589.001.018, 0795.001.004, 0814.001.003, 0825.001.010, 0895.001.006, 0922-1.001.002, 0934.001.006, 

0999.001.001, 1100.001.002, 1130.001.002, 1156.001.003, 1219.001.005, 1229.001.007, 1241.001.007, 1304-1.001.010, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2311
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

1305.001.003, 1331-1.001.006, 1348-1.001.004, 1359-1.001.045, 1359-1.001.046, 1361-1.001.010, 1370-1.001.005, 1371­

1.001.003, 1371-1.001.005, 1371-1.001.006, 1416-1.001.023, 1473-1.001.019, 1473-1.001.021, 1473-1.001.030, 1474-1.001.003, 

1474-1.001.029, 1474-1.001.033, 1474-1.001.041, 1477-1.001.024, 1480-1.001.005, 1532-1.001.006, 1550.001.002, 1559.001.005, 

1641-1.001.016, 1647-1.001.013, 1722-1.001.004, 1723-1.001.006, 1725-1.001.003, 1729.001.003, 1767-1.001.004, 1786­

1.001.016, 1789-1.001.002, 1792-1.001.002, 1794-1.001.003, 1796-1.001.008, 1797-1.001.007, 1799-1.001.005, 1811-1.001.002, 

1811-1.001.009, 1812-1.001.007, 1837-1.001.003, 1900.001.004, 2233-1.001.052, 2233-1.001.062 

Response: Please see the response to Comment IDs: 1292-1.001.011, 1292-1.001.012, 1476-2.001.018, 1477-1.001.022, 1834­

2.001.006, 2233-1.001.013, and 2233-1.001.041 in section III.A.2 for EPA’s position on following the SAB guidance. 

EPA received a variety of comments arguing that no cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses had 

been established and, therefore, that criteria for nutrients will not protect designated uses nor will the reduction of nutrients result in 

predictable environmental improvements. EPA considered these and other comments. There is a well established, sizeable body of 

scientific knowledge including both experimental and observational studies, including in Florida, that has unequivocally established 

a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses in fresh water lotic ecosystems, including an effect on the 

balance of natural aquatic flora and fauna (e.g., Elwood et al.1981, Bothwell 1985, Peterson et al. 1985, Moss et al. 1989, Dodds 

and Gudder 1992, Rosemond et al. 1993, Bowling and Baker 1996, Bourassa and Cattaneo 1998, Biggs 2000, Francoeur 2001, 

Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002, Notestein et al. 2003, Slavik et al. 2004, Gaiser et al. 2005, Cross et al. 2006, 

Mulholland and Webster 2010 and see final rule and final rule TSD). EPA has concluded from this body of scientific knowledge 

that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and detrimental biological responses exists and that nutrient 

reduction will result in environmental improvement. EPA received related but distinct comments that stressor-response 

relationships were insufficient to derive numeric criteria in Florida. EPA considered a range of stressor-response analyses for 

deriving numeric criteria in Florida and concluded that there was a lack of the necessary combination of data regarding potentially 

confounding factors that influence the empirically estimated relationship between nutrients and response variables to support the 

use of the stressor-response methodology in this context. Therefore, for the final rule, EPA utilized the reference condition 

approach to derive numeric criteria for Florida streams as described in previously published and peer-reviewed national nutrient 

criteria guidance. 

With regards to the requirement for biological validation, EPA disagrees that independent biological validation is necessary. EPA 

does not require dependent proof of biological impairment for any other existing aquatic life water quality criterion; such dependent 

proof is unnecessary when establishing concentrations that are intended to be protective of aquatic life. EPA believes that it is 

important to make impairment decisions based on levels of TN and/or TP that are established as independent criteria to provide 

protection for lakes before adverse biological conditions manifest themselves. Furthermore, EPA believes that the intent of water 

quality standards as described in CWA section 303(c) is to be preventative in a way that would restore and maintain water quality, 

not only to be reactive once impairments have been observed. EPA also notes that reliance upon biological responses as the arbiter 

of a listing may provide a false sense of security and preventiveness by the water quality criteria. It is the Agency's scientific 

understanding that there are confounding factors that may prevent a biological response in time and space in a particular waterbody, 

but the response may be present at that same space during another time when the confounding factors are removed or may be 

present in another space when water flows downstream where the confounding factors are absent. Additionally, there can be lag 

time between nutrient concentration and response -- a concentration that is measured at a particular time is not necessarily the 

concentration that caused the response. Waiting until a biological response is present and detected is not protective of designated 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2312
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

uses, and is not consistent with the objective of the Clean Water Act that provides for the restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. 

With respect to cost and benefits, please see the preamble and Economic Assessment; to the scientific defensibility of numeric 

nutrient criteria, please also refer to the response to the comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416­

1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1; and see the preamble for the 

regulatory basis of numeric nutrient criteria. 

Comment IDs: 0922-1.001.031, 1614-1.001.008, 1837-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.010 

Response: EPA received a variety of comments arguing that no cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological 

responses had been established and, therefore, that criteria for nutrients will not protect designated uses nor will the reduction of 

nutrients result in predictable environmental improvements. EPA considered these and other comments. There is a well 

established, sizeable body of scientific knowledge including both experimental and observational studies, including in Florida, that 

has unequivocally established a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses in fresh water lotic 

ecosystems, including an effect on the balance of natural aquatic flora and fauna (e.g., Elwood et al.1981, Bothwell 1985, Peterson 

et al. 1985, Moss et al. 1989, Dodds and Gudder 1992, Rosemond et al. 1993, Bowling and Baker 1996, Bourassa and Cattaneo 

1998, Biggs 2000, Francoeur 2001, Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002, Notestein et al. 2003, Slavik et al. 2004, Gaiser et 

al. 2005, Cross et al. 2006, Mulholland and Webster 2010 and see final rule and final rule TSD). EPA has concluded from this 

body of scientific knowledge that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and detrimental biological responses 

exists and that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement. EPA received related but distinct comments that 

stressor-response relationships were insufficient to derive nutrient criteria in Florida. EPA considered a range of stressor-response 

analyses for deriving numeric criteria in Florida and concluded that there was a lack of the necessary combination of data regarding 

potentially confounding factors that influence the empirically estimated relationship between nutrients and response variables to 

support the use of the stressor-response methodology in this context. Therefore, for the final rule, EPA utilized the reference 

condition approach to derive numeric criteria for Florida streams as described in previously published and peer-reviewed national 

nutrient criteria guidance. 

Comment ID: 0922-1.001.042 

Response: EPA determined that in lakes, chl-a concentration was the response variable that was most strongly associated with 

attainment of designated uses. Excessive increases in chl-a are known to cause a variety of effects that negatively affect water 

quality (see TSD). 

Comment IDs: 1532-1.001.013, 1532-1.001.017 

Response: See the response to Comment IDs: 1532-1.001.005, 1759-1.001.004, section III.A.2. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2313
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment IDs: 1556-1.001.003, 1797-1.001.023, 1943.001.001, 2233-1.001.038 

Response: In all waterbodies (springs, lakes, and streams), linkages between the final criteria and designated uses have been 

articulated (see TSD, see response to comment 0922-1.001.031). 

Comment IDs: 1641-1.001.009, 0623.001.010 

Response: EPA received a variety of comments arguing that no cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological 

responses had been established and, therefore, that criteria for nutrients will not protect designated uses nor will the reduction of 

nutrients result in predictable environmental improvements. EPA considered these and other comments. There is a well 

established, sizeable body of scientific knowledge including both experimental and observational studies, including in Florida, that 

has unequivocally established a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses in fresh water lotic 

ecosystems, including an effect on the balance of natural aquatic flora and fauna (e.g., Elwood et al.1981, Bothwell 1985, Peterson 

et al. 1985, Moss et al. 1989, Dodds and Gudder 1992, Rosemond et al. 1993, Bowling and Baker 1996, Bourassa and Cattaneo 

1998, Biggs 2000, Francoeur 2001, Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002, Notestein et al. 2003, Slavik et al. 2004, Gaiser et 

al. 2005, Cross et al. 2006, Mulholland and Webster 2010 and see final rule and final rule TSD). EPA has concluded from this 

body of scientific knowledge that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and detrimental biological responses 

exists and that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement. EPA received related but distinct comments that 

stressor-response relationships were insufficient to derive nutrient criteria in Florida. EPA considered a range of stressor-response 

analyses for deriving nutrient criteria in Florida and concluded that there was a lack of the necessary combination of data regarding 

potentially confounding factors that influence the empirically estimated relationship between nutrients and response variables to 

support the use of the stressor-response methodology in this context. Therefore, for the final rule, EPA utilized the reference 

condition approach to derive numeric criteria for Florida streams as described in previously published and peer-reviewed national 

nutrient criteria guidance. 

EPA has considered paleolimnological data and used its analyses of these data to inform criteria derivation (see TSD). However, 

EPA's obligation and goal is to set criteria to protect designated uses, not to return waters to conditions prior to human activities. 

EPA's analyses and final criteria have been developed so that waters achieve designated uses (see TSD). 

With respect to the proportion of waters declared impaired, EPA again notes that is obligation is to set criteria to protect designated 

uses, not to specify a particular proportion of waterbodies that is or is not attaining its uses. 

Comment ID: 1647-1.001.014 

Response: EPA used the reference condition approach to establish criteria for streams because available data were most suitable for 

applying this approach (see response to comment 1641-1.001.009). EPA does not believe that the number of Type I or Type II 

errors is excessive and notes that the commenters provided no data or analysis to support this contention. EPA also points to the TN 

and TP lake modification provision as well as the federal SSAC process contained in the final rule as a means of setting site-specific 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2314
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

criteria where the numeric criteria that EPA has established are determined to be either under- or over-protective. 

Comment IDs: 2233-1.001.067, 2233-1.001.087 

Response: With respect to EPA’s determination, please also refer to the response to the comment group, Comment IDs: 1301­

1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1. 

Please see the response to Comment IDs: 1292-1.001.011, 1292-1.001.012, 1476-2.001.018, 1477-1.001.022, 1834-2.001.006, 

2233-1.001.013, and 2233-1.001.041 in section III.A.2 for EPA’s position on following the SAB guidance. 

EPA received a variety of comments arguing that no cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses had 

been established and, therefore, that criteria for nutrients will not protect designated uses nor will the reduction of nutrients result in 

predictable environmental improvements. EPA considered these and other comments. There is a well established, sizeable body of 

scientific knowledge including both experimental and observational studies, including in Florida, that has unequivocally established 

a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses in fresh water lotic ecosystems, including an effect on the 

balance of natural aquatic flora and fauna (e.g., Elwood et al.1981, Bothwell 1985, Peterson et al. 1985, Moss et al. 1989, Dodds 

and Gudder 1992, Rosemond et al. 1993, Bowling and Baker 1996, Bourassa and Cattaneo 1998, Biggs 2000, Francoeur 2001, 

Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002, Notestein et al. 2003, Slavik et al. 2004, Gaiser et al. 2005, Cross et al. 2006, 

Mulholland and Webster 2010 and see final rule and final rule TSD). EPA has concluded from this body of scientific knowledge 

that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and detrimental biological responses exists and that nutrient 

reduction will result in environmental improvement. EPA received related but distinct comments that stressor-response 

relationships were insufficient to derive nutrient criteria in Florida. EPA considered a range of stressor-response analyses for 

deriving numeric criteria in Florida and concluded that there was a lack of the necessary combination of data regarding potentially 

confounding factors that influence the empirically estimated relationship between nutrients and response variables to support the 

use of the stressor-response methodology in this context. Therefore, for the final rule, EPA utilized the reference condition 

approach to derive numeric criteria for Florida streams as described in previously published and peer-reviewed national nutrient 

criteria guidance. 

EPA notes that it did use the stress-response approach as the primary line of evidence for deriving numeric lakes criteria; indeed, 

most of the TSD section on lakes is devoted to stressor-response data analysis and results. Please see the TSD for complete 

explanation of EPA’s stress-response analyses. In previously published guidance, EPA has generally recommended three separate 

approaches to consider for numeric nutrient criteria development: the reference condition approach, the stressor-response approach 

and mechanistic modeling. EPA further disagrees with the commenter’s opinion that one approach is inferior to another. The 

approach that is best suited for a particular situation may depend on the extent and amount of available data, as well as the 

complexity of the system. 

See the response to Comment IDs 1105.001.002, et al., in section III.B.2 for more information on classification of lakes. 

EPA notes that it did use the stressor-response approach as the primary line of evidence for deriving numeric lakes criteria; indeed, 

most of the TSD section on lakes is devoted to stressor -response data analysis and results. Please see the TSD for complete 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2315
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

explanation of EPA’s stressor-response analyses. In previously published guidance, EPA has generally recommended three 

separate approaches to consider for numeric nutrient criteria development: the reference condition approach, the stressor-response 

approach and mechanistic modeling. EPA further disagrees with the commenter’s opinion that one approach is inferior to another. 

The approach that is best suited for a particular situation may depend on the extent and amount of available data, as well as the 

complexity of the system. 

EPA is also committed to working with FDEP in the future to implement the final criteria. 

Comment IDs: 0586.001.005, 0589.001.023, 0828.001.005, 1053.001.004 

Response: EPA defers implementation questions to FDEP. 

Comment IDs: 0610.001.001, 0756.001.002, 0820.001.002, 0831.001.001, 0876.001.001, 0877.001.001, 1215.001.001 

Response: EPA defers source control and remediation activities to FDEP. 

Comment IDs: 0712.001.002, 0776.001.003, 0817.001.006, 0819.001.001, 0827.001.002, 0833.001.003, 0839.001.004, 

0855.001.002, 0933.001.003, 0934.001.002, 0948.001.001, 1050.001.005, 1093.001.003, 1221.001.004, 1240.001.003, 

1229.001.006, 1320.001.004, 1341.001.002, 1483-1.001.002, 1786-1.001.057, 1901.001.002 

Response: EPA defers implementation issues to FDEP. 

Comment IDs: 1473-1.001.037, 1474-1.001.048 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations require water quality standards to be 

established at levels that protect designated uses. 40 CFR 130.10(b) further requires that WQS must provide for the attainment and 

maintenance of the WQS of downstream waters, expressed in this rule as DPVs for lakes. The TMDL process is intended to 

determine the loads necessary to meet applicable water quality standards once waterbodies are identified as impaired. One of the 

purposes in undertaking this rulemaking is to set the numeric WQC so that the targets do not have to be set individually for each 

TMDL, not to mention waiting until a waterbody is impaired before taking action. Additionally, the commenter does not supply 

data or analyses to show how deferring control of nutrients to the TMDL process will have less impact on the economy. EPA defers 

implementation issues, such as BMPs, to FDEP. 

Comment IDs: 0633.001.002, 1321.001.010, 1877.001.003 

Response: With regards to the requirement for biological validation, EPA disagrees that independent biological validation is 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2316
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

necessary. EPA does not require dependent proof of biological impairment for any other existing aquatic life water quality 

criterion; such dependent proof is unnecessary when establishing concentrations that are intended to be protective of aquatic life. 

EPA believes that it is important to make impairment decisions based on levels of TN and/or TP that are established as independent 

criteria to provide protection for lakes before adverse biological conditions manifest themselves. Furthermore, EPA believes that the 

intent of water quality standards as described in CWA section 303(c) is to be preventative in a way that would restore and maintain 

water quality, not only to be reactive once impairments have been observed. EPA also notes that reliance upon biological responses 

as the arbiter of a listing may provide a false sense of security and preventiveness by the water quality criteria. It is the Agency's 

scientific understanding that there are confounding factors that may prevent a biological response in time and space in a particular 

waterbody, but the response may be present at that same space during another time when the confounding factors are removed or 

may be present in another space when water flows downstream where the confounding factors are absent. Additionally, there can 

be lag time between nutrient concentration and response -- a concentration that is measured at a particular time is not necessarily the 

concentration that caused the response. Waiting until a biological response is present and detected is not protective of designated 

uses, and is not consistent with the objective of the Clean Water Act that provides for the restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. 

Comment ID: 0644.001.010 

Response: For the reasons stated in the preamble and in EPA's determination, EPA believes that a rule is needed. EPA also notes 

that the 90th percentile of benchmark sites are used for many of the numeric streams criteria, and EPA believes that biological 

validation is not required (see response to comment 0633.001.002). 

Comment IDs: 0744.001.004, 2233.001.006 

Response: EPA considered existing conditions in both lake chl-a criteria and least-disturbed sites in the stream criteria, both of 

which are comparable with “back-stopping”. Please see the TSD for more information. 

Comment IDs: 0745.001.002, 1352-1.001.009, 1774.001.006, 1923.001.002 

Response: EPA recognizes the concern of the commenters about the application of the numeric nutrient criteria to reclaimed water. 

EPA notes that numeric nutrient criteria will apply to all Class I and Class III inland surface waters as designated by FDEP. Current 

Florida regulations would apply with respect to stormwater treatment or reclamation ponds that are designated as Class I or III. 

Similarly, reclaimed water that is used for irrigation and other surface applications would be subject to any current FDEP 

regulations, such as reasonable assurance requirements, that apply. Commenter 0742.001.002 does not supply any data to support 

the claim that, for waters around St. Petersburg, the final standards will affect dissolved oxygen levels. 

For the comments on natural background levels in runoff, see the response to Comment IDs: 1774-1.001.004, 1774-1.001.006 in 

section III.A.2. EPA refers the commenters to the preamble and TSD to understand how EPA factored in natural variation and 

conditions in Florida. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2317
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment IDs: 1352-1.001.038, 1416-1.001.025 

Response: EPA has incorporated flexibility in the rule through a SSAC process and a one-time site-specific criteria modification for 

the lakes. The final regulation has much flexibility for FDEP implementation issues. 

Comment IDs: 1304-1.001.031, 1304-1.001.033, 1360-1.001.003, 1361-1.001.009, 1473-1.001.031, 1474-1.001.042, 1480­

1.001.015, 1725-1.001.007, 1768-1.001.009, 1786-1.001.013, 1802-1.001.001 

Response: EPA's obligation is not to manage to background levels of nutrients, but instead to protect designated uses in different 

waterbodies. 

Comment ID: 1786-1.001.063
 

Response: Nutrient assimilation zones, like mixing zones, are outside of the scope of this action.
 

Comment IDs: 0752.001.005, 0752.001.006
 

Response: EPA recognizes the importance of water quality issues and human health impacts related to elevated levels of fecal 

coliform, however this rulemaking is specific to nutrient pollution. 

Comment IDs: 0764.001.002, 0778.001.001, 0942.001.005
 

Response: EPA defers implementation of these criteria to FDEP.
 

Comment ID: 0787.001.003
 

Response: TMDLs and NRCS resources are outside of the scope of the regulation.
 

Comment IDs: 0860.001.007, 0873.001.002, 0942.001.004, 1219.001.008
 

Response: Pollutants such as heavy metals, hormone disruptors, iron, and other pollutants are not within the scope of the final 

regulation. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2318
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID: 0909.001.002 

Response: Mixing zones are outside of the scope of this action. Please see the TSD for descriptions of the analytical methods EPA 

used for deriving the final criteria values. 

Comment ID: 0942.001.003 

Response: EPA has developed these criteria to translate Florida's narrative nutrient criteria to be protective of Florida’s designated 

uses for Class I and III waters. See preamble to final rule for a detailed discussion regarding the applicability of this rule. 

Comment IDs: 1011.001.009, 1370-1.001.032 

Response: Please see the preamble and TSD for justification on the use of chl-a and the levels needed to be protective of the 

designated uses of Florida’s Class I and III waters. Implementation issues, such as availability of labs, are deferred to FDEP. 

Comment IDs: 1176.001.006, 1292-1.001.004, 1363-1.001.003, 1363-1.001.008, 1464-1.001.009, 1532-1.001.008, 1617-1.001.008, 

1774.001.005, 1782-1.001.032, 1782-1.001.033, 1782-1.001.034, 1790-1.001.009, 1810-1.001.009, 2233-1.001.069 

Response: There is flexibility in the implementation of various aspects of the Clean Water Act to allow FDEP latitude in developing 

implementation activities that include load-based allocations in NPDES permits. FDEP can set load-based permit limits even 

though the criteria are concentration-based as long as FDEP can show that permit limits meet WQS. While inorganic nutrients are 

used directly by algae and plants, water quality criteria for total water column concentrations (TP and TN) are more appropriate 

than dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) or soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP). Inorganic nutrient pools are depleted and recycled 

rapidly. Most monitoring programs will not be able to closely track soluble nutrients in a system and should therefore focus on total 

water column concentration rather than soluble nutrient species (U.S. EPA 2000a, 2000b). 

Additional factors also confound the interpretation of dissolved nutrient data. Algae are able to directly utilize inorganic nutrient 

pools (DIN and SRP) and deplete these pools if algal biomass is high. Thus, moderately low levels of DIN and SRP do not 

necessarily result in low algal biomass. This apparent contradiction is due to the fact that the supply rate of inorganic nutrients may 

still be high even if a large biomass of algae has removed a significant portion of the DIN or SRP from the water column. Algal 

growth rate (including diatoms and filamentous greens) can be saturated at low dissolved inorganic nutrient concentrations 

(Bothwell 1985, 1989; Watson et al. 1990; Walton et al. 1995). 

Comment ID: 1219.001.006 

Response: EPA has deferred the development of DPVs for estuaries, which are no longer in the scope of this final regulation. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2319
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID: 1256.001.002 

Response: EPA recognizes the value of reasonable assurance plans, but implementation is deferred to FDEP. 

Comment ID: 1271.001.004 

Response: Implementation issues such as prioritization of waters and planning cycles are deferred to FDEP. 

Comment IDs: 1292-1.001.005, 1292-1.001.024, 1292-1.001.093 

Response: EPA has quantified uncertainty in all of its statistical analyses (see TSD). 

Comment IDs: 1292-1.001.025, 1797-1.001.025, 1338-1.001.005 

Response: EPA believes that it is important to make impairment decisions based on levels of TN and/or TP that are established as 

independent criteria to provide protection for lakes before adverse biological conditions manifest themselves. Furthermore, EPA 

believes that the intent of water quality standards as described in CWA section 303(c) is to be preventative in a way that would 

restore and maintain water quality, not only to be reactive once impairments have been observed. EPA also notes that reliance upon 

biological responses as the arbiter of a listing may provide a false sense of security and preventiveness by the water quality criteria. 

It is the Agency's scientific understanding that there are confounding factors that may prevent a biological response in time and 

space in a particular waterbody, but the response may be present at that same space during another time when the confounding 

factors are removed or may be present in another space when water flows downstream where the confounding factors are absent. 

Additionally, there can be lag time between nutrient concentration and response -- a concentration that is measured at a particular 

time is not necessarily the concentration that caused the response. 

EPA received a variety of comments arguing that no cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses had 

been established and, therefore, that criteria for nutrients will not protect designated uses nor will the reduction of nutrients result in 

predictable environmental improvements. EPA considered these and other comments. There is a well established, sizeable body of 

scientific knowledge including both experimental and observational studies, including in Florida, that has unequivocally established 

a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses in fresh water lotic ecosystems, including an effect on the 

balance of natural aquatic flora and fauna (e.g., Elwood et al.1981, Bothwell 1985, Peterson et al. 1985, Moss et al. 1989, Dodds 

and Gudder 1992, Rosemond et al. 1993, Bowling and Baker 1996, Bourassa and Cattaneo 1998, Biggs 2000, Francoeur 2001, 

Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002, Notestein et al. 2003, Slavik et al. 2004, Gaiser et al. 2005, Cross et al. 2006, 

Mulholland and Webster 2010 and see final rule and final rule TSD). EPA has concluded from this body of scientific knowledge 

that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and detrimental biological responses exists and that nutrient 

reduction will result in environmental improvement. EPA received related but distinct comments that stressor-response 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2320
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

relationships were insufficient to derive nutrient criteria in Florida. EPA considered a range of stressor-response analyses for 

deriving nutrient criteria in Florida and concluded that there was a lack of the necessary combination of data regarding potentially 

confounding factors that influence the empirically estimated relationship between nutrients and response variables to support the 

use of the stressor-response methodology in this context. Therefore, for the final rule, EPA utilized the reference condition 

approach to derive numeric criteria for Florida streams as described in previously published and peer-reviewed national nutrient 

criteria guidance. 

EPA notes that it did use the stressor-response approach as the primary line of evidence for deriving numeric lakes criteria; indeed, 

most of the TSD section on lakes is devoted to stressor-response data analysis and results. Please see the TSD for complete 

explanation of EPA’s stressor-response analyses. In previously published guidance, EPA has generally recommended three 

separate approaches to consider for numeric nutrient criteria development: the reference condition approach, the stressor-response 

approach and mechanistic modeling. EPA further disagrees with the commenter’s opinion that one approach is inferior to another. 

The approach that is best suited for a particular situation may depend on the extent and amount of available data, as well as the 

complexity of the system. 

Please see the TSD for details about the uncertainty analysis EPA has done in support of the final regulation. 

Comment ID: 1292-1.001.086 

Response: Please see the TSD for compete details on the analytical approaches EPA used, including uncertainty analysis. 

Comment ID: 1304-1.001.038 

Response: Please see the TSD for detailed descriptions on the alternatives EPA considered and justification for the approaches 

selected. Additionally, use of alternative response variables can be done with the SSAC process. 

Comment ID: 1304-1.001.042 

Response: EPA received several comments related to the concern that numeric criteria may be too stringent and would threaten 

ecosystem health by reducing concentrations below those necessary for supporting natural productivity, even potentially threatening 

listed species. EPA disagrees that the criteria in the rule are below concentrations needed to support natural productivity. EPA 

considered whether the criteria may be overly stringent but concluded that basing the criteria on concentrations known to support 

the diverse aquatic life found in least-disturbed and biologically healthy streams would result in concentrations protective of aquatic 

life. Research on nutrient concentrations necessary to support stream ecosystems has indicated that the concentrations being 

promulgated as criteria in this rule pose little or no threat of contributing to an oligotrophication of streams in Florida. This 

research was well described in the preamble and supporting documentation, but there are many more such studies (e.g., Elwood et 

al. 1981, Bothwell 1985, Peterson et al. 1985, Moss et al. 1989, Dodds and Gudder 1992, Rosemond et al. 1993, Bowling and Baker 

1996, Bourassa and Cattaneo 1998, Biggs 2000, Francoeur 2001, Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002, Slavik et al. 2004, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2321
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Cross et al. 2006, Mulholland and Webster 2010). In addition, as noted earlier, if sufficient concern exists that the criteria threaten 

uses, then site-specific criteria can be developed to provide alternative values. Lastly, an evaluation of impacts of the criteria on 

federally listed species has been made by the appropriate agencies as required under the Endangered Species Act as part of this 

rulemaking effort, including consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Comment IDs: 1011.001.002, 1346-1.001.007, 1359-1.001.052, 1473-1.001.011, 1477-1.001.003, 1748-1.001.002, 1801-1.001.006, 

1837-1.001.004, 2233-1.001.033, 2233-1.001.044 

Response: Please also refer to the response to the comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416­

1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1. 

Comment ID: 1885.001.020 

Response: EPA’s approach provides for criteria applicable to classes of waters, as provided in detail in the preamble and regulation. 

SSACs are a tool to allow for flexibility in implementing the rule. 

Comment ID: 1414-1.001.008 

Response: EPA has used a variety of approaches in developing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida. For lakes, EPA’s criteria 

specify causal variables (TN and TP) and chl-a as the response variable. For streams, EPA is specifying TN and TP as causal 

variables. For springs EPA is specifying NO3+NO2 as a causal variable. 

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.014 

Response: Please also refer to the response to the comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416­

1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1. 

Comment ID: 1474-2.001.011 

Response: In the final rule, EPA has provided a flexible approach to the derivation of downstream protection values that allows for 

the use of the BATHTUB model or another scientifically defensible model that can account for site-specific situations, including 

loss of TN and TP from the stream that flows into the lake. 

Comment ID: 1671-3.001.104 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2322
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Response: EPA received several comments related to the concern that numeric criteria may be too stringent and would threaten 

ecosystem health by reducing concentrations below those necessary for supporting natural productivity, even potentially threatening 

listed species. EPA disagrees that the criteria in the rule are below concentrations needed to support natural productivity. EPA 

considered whether the criteria may be overly stringent but, concluded that basing the criteria on concentrations known to support 

the diverse aquatic life found in least-disturbed and biologically healthy streams will result in concentrations protective of aquatic 

life. Research on nutrient concentrations necessary to support stream ecosystems has indicated that the concentrations being 

promulgated as criteria in this rule pose little or no threat of contributing to an oligotrophication of streams in Florida. This 

research was well described in the preamble and supporting documentation, but there are many more such studies (e.g., Elwood et 

al. 1981, Bothwell 1985, Peterson et al. 1985, Moss et al. 1989, Dodds and Gudder 1992, Rosemond et al. 1993, Bowling and Baker 

1996, Bourassa and Cattaneo 1998, Biggs 2000, Francoeur 2001, Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002, Slavik et al. 2004, 

Cross et al. 2006, Mulholland and Webster 2010). In addition, as noted earlier, if sufficient concern exists that the criteria threaten 

uses, then site-specific criteria can be developed to provide alternative values. Lastly, an evaluation of impacts of the criteria on 

federally listed species has been made by the appropriate agencies as required under the Endangered Species Act as part of this 

rulemaking effort, including consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Comment ID: 1713-1.001.005 

Response: EPA defers implementation of the regulation to FDEP. 

Comment ID: 1786-1.001.014 

Response: In previously published guidance, EPA has generally recommended three separate approaches to consider for numeric 

nutrient criteria development: the reference condition approach, the stressor-response approach and mechanistic modeling. The 

approach that is best suited for a particular situation may depend on the extent and amount of available data, as well as the 

complexity of the system. 

Comment IDs: 1774.001.015, 1774.001.016 

Response: Please see the preamble and TSD for the details about the scientific basis of the criteria, including information about 

temporal and seasonal variability. 

Comment ID: 1796-1.001.005 

Response: Please see the preamble and TSD for the details about the scientific basis of the criteria, including information about 

temporal and seasonal variability. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2323
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID: 1778-1.001.003 

Response: For this final rule, EPA has established numeric criteria to protect inland waters that the State of Florida has designated 

as either Class I or III from nitrogen/phosphorus pollution, by translating the State's current narrative nutrient criterion applicable to 

these designated uses into numeric values that support balanced natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. The State currently 

has applicable dissolved oxygen water quality standards. Additionally, the State has nitrate drinking water standards for protection 

of human health. The CWA provides for the protection of water quality to support fishable/swimmable uses of the nation's waters, 

while the Safe Drinking Water Act provides for protection of human health from the ingestion of drinking water. Please see the 

preamble for more information regarding the purpose of this rulemaking effort. 

Comment IDs: 1786-1.001.010, 1786-1.001.056, 1786-1.001.065 

Response: In previously published guidance, EPA has generally recommended three separate approaches to consider for numeric 

nutrient criteria development: the reference condition approach, the stressor-response approach and mechanistic modeling. The 

approach that is best suited for a particular situation may depend on the extent and amount of available data, as well as the 

complexity of the system. Please also refer to the response to the comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 

1416-1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, and 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1. 

EPA promulgated these criteria to protect Florida’s lakes, streams, and springs from the adverse effects of nitrogen and phosphorus 

pollution. In this action, EPA has interpreted and quantified Florida’s existing narrative criteria (at rule 62-302.530(47)(b), F.A.C) 

for nutrients, which will provide the State with an important baseline for monitoring and assessment, a basis for pollution permit 

limits and best management practices to limit nonpoint pollution, and targets for remediating poor water quality due to nitrogen or 

phosphorus pollution. EPA employed the principles of sound science using the best available scientific information. 

EPA’s guiding principles in deriving numeric water quality standards for nitrogen and phosphorus are that they be based on a sound 

scientific rationale and be protective of the state’s designated uses (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)). EPA engaged scientific experts within 

and outside the Agency to carefully consider the best available data and scientific information in support of the Agency’s final rule. 

EPA did not consider factors unrelated to the science or designated uses, such as cost to attain the water quality standards, because 

they were contrary to the CWA and the Agency’s implementing regulations that emphasize and isolate the roles of science and 

protectiveness in the decision-making process. 

EPA put into practice its standards for scientific defensibility for its final rule, which are consistent with the generally accepted 

principles of scientific integrity practiced within the scientific community. These principles include: collaboration with scientific 

experts within and outside EPA; the use of the best available scientific data and information; conducting an external, independent 

peer review of EPA’s methods and approaches; inviting public feedback; creating a transparent record of scientifically-based 

decisions; ensuring consistency with EPA peer-reviewed and published technical guidance; and reproducibility of EPA’s analyses 

and results. The combination of all of these factors yields a final rule that EPA based on sound science, with confidence that the 

rule will provide the intended protections for Florida’s unique and sensitive aquatic resources. 

EPA collaborated and consulted extensively with scientists from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2324
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration to ensure that the best available scientific data and methods were used in 

EPA’s analyses. In developing this rule, EPA worked with FDEP scientists to ensure that available and reliable data on nutrients 

collected in the State of Florida were assessed and that scientific methods appropriately took into account the diversity of 

waterbodies in Florida. EPA conducted an external, independent scientific peer review of those methods following EPA’s own Peer 

Review Handbook. The results of this peer review are available in the docket for this rulemaking. In addition, in the January 2010 

proposal and August 2010 Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment, EPA invited public feedback on the 

scientific methods and approaches, so that the Agency could thoroughly consider and evaluate additional views. In the final rule, 

EPA has continued to provide a transparent record of the Agency’s scientifically based decision-making process by providing to the 

public the scientific methods, approaches, and data EPA used to support its final rule. This record can be used to verify and 

reproduce EPA’s promulgated criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. 

EPA received a variety of comments arguing that no cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses had 

been established and, therefore, that criteria for nutrients will not protect designated uses nor will the reduction of nutrients result in 

predictable environmental improvements. EPA considered these and other comments. There is a well established, sizeable body of 

scientific knowledge including both experimental and observational studies, including in Florida, that has unequivocally established 

a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses in fresh water lotic ecosystems, including an effect on the 

balance of natural aquatic flora and fauna (e.g., Elwood et al.1981, Bothwell 1985, Peterson et al. 1985, Moss et al. 1989, Dodds 

and Gudder 1992, Rosemond et al. 1993, Bowling and Baker 1996, Bourassa and Cattaneo 1998, Biggs 2000, Francoeur 2001, 

Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002, Notestein et al. 2003, Slavik et al. 2004, Gaiser et al. 2005, Cross et al. 2006, 

Mulholland and Webster 2010 and see final rule and final rule TSD). EPA has concluded from this body of scientific knowledge 

that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and detrimental biological responses exists and that nutrient 

reduction will result in environmental improvement. EPA received related but distinct comments that stressor-response 

relationships were insufficient to derive nutrient criteria in Florida. EPA considered a range of stressor-response analyses for 

deriving nutrient criteria in Florida and concluded that there was a lack of the necessary combination of data regarding potentially 

confounding factors that influence the empirically estimated relationship between nutrients and response variables to support the 

use of the stressor-response methodology in this context. Therefore, for the final rule, EPA utilized the reference condition 

approach to derive numeric criteria for Florida streams as described in previously published and peer-reviewed national nutrient 

criteria guidance. 

Comment ID: 1786-1.001.062 

Response: In previously published guidance, EPA has generally recommended three separate approaches to consider for numeric 

nutrient criteria development: the reference condition approach, the stressor-response approach and mechanistic modeling. The 

approach that is best suited for a particular situation may depend on the extent and amount of available data, as well as the 

complexity of the system. With regards to the requirement for biological validation, EPA disagrees that independent biological 

validation is necessary. EPA does not require dependent proof of biological impairment for any other existing aquatic life water 

quality criterion; such dependent proof is unnecessary when establishing concentrations that are intended to be protective of aquatic 

life. EPA believes that it is important to make impairment decisions based on levels of TN and/or TP that are established as 

independent criteria to provide protection for lakes before adverse biological conditions manifest themselves. Furthermore, EPA 

believes that the intent of water quality standards as described in CWA section 303(c) is to be preventative in a way that would 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2325
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

restore and maintain water quality, not only to be reactive once impairments have been observed. EPA also notes that reliance upon 

biological responses as the arbiter of a listing may provide a false sense of security and preventiveness by the water quality criteria. 

It is the Agency's scientific understanding that there are confounding factors that may prevent a biological response in time and 

space in a particular waterbody, but the response may be present at that same space during another time when the confounding 

factors are removed or may be present in another space when water flows downstream where the confounding factors are absent. 

Additionally, there can be lag time between nutrient concentration and response -- a concentration that is measured at a particular 

time is not necessarily the concentration that caused the response. Waiting until a biological response is present and detected is not 

protective of designated uses, and is not consistent with the objective of the Clean Water Act that provides for the restoration and 

maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. 

Comment ID: 1787-1.001.009 

Response: Please also refer to the response to the comment group, Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.003, 1416-1.001.010, 1416­

1.001.012, 2233-1.001.005, 2233-1.001.042, and 2233-1.001.047, located in issue category II.D.1. 

Comment ID: 2233-1.001.072 

Response: In previously published guidance, EPA has generally recommended three separate approaches to consider for numeric 

nutrient criteria development: the reference condition approach, the stressor-response approach and mechanistic modeling. The 

approach that is best suited for a particular situation may depend on the extent and amount of available data, as well as the 

complexity of the system. 

III.A.2.Q.2 - GENERAL INFORMATION QUESTION 2 

Comment ID 0184.001.002 

Author Name: Muench G. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site. See 

http://crabbyadventures.com/blue_crab_petition for a blue crab petition from citizens of Tampa Bay area raising their 

concerns for blue crabs. 

Comment ID 0193.001.002 

Author Name: Knight A. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2326
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a report by the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. 

See the report here by Florida Institute of Phosphate Research; Florida Institute of Phosphate Research - FIPR Report 

2003 ... Overview of FIPR's Public & Environmental Health: Florida Institute of Phosphate Research - FIPR Report 2003 

... Overview of FIPR's Public & Environmental Health Program and Priorities with current and .... Brian Birky has 

directed this area of research since 2000. ... 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site. See 

http://www.fipr.state.fl.us/FIPRreport2003/research-area-public-health2003.htm - 25k - Cached for more information on 

the Overview of FIPR's Public & Environmental Health Program and Priorities. 

Comment ID 0491-1.001.010 

Author Name: Yarborough J. 

Organization: City of Palm Bay Utilities Department 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

References 

FWEA Utilities Council. Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida's Domestic Wastewater Reclamation 

Facilities. Prepared by Carollo Engineers. November 2009. http://www.fweauc.org/Positions.asp 

FWEA Utilities Council. Numeric Nutrient Criteria Update. November 2009. http://www.fweauc.org/Positions.asp 

St. Johns River Management District. Engineering Assistance in Updating Information on Waster Supply and Reuse 

System Component Costs. Special Publication SJ2008-SP1 O. Prepared by Black & Veatch. May 2008. 

Water Environmental Federation. Biological and Chemical Systems for Nutrient Removal. 1998. 

Comment ID 0491-1.001.011 

Author Name: Yarborough J. 

Organization: City of Palm Bay Utilities Department 

Original comment contains additional information as an attachment as an estimate for Upgrade 1.2 MGD AADF WRF to 

Proposed NMR limits from Wade Trim. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0509-2.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2327
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Garza, Jr. A.
 

Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter from Secretary Mike Sole. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0509-3.001.001 

Author Name: Garza, Jr. A.
 

Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about all waterbody types in the PowerPoint 

presentation titled Overview of EPA’s Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Flowing Waters from Florida 

DEP. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0580.001.003 

Author Name: Browning D. 

Organization: 

Private Sewer Treatment Plant workers arrested after dispute over Public vs Private use of Spray Field 

http://www.ocala.com/article/20090506/ARTICLES/905061008?Title=Two-men-charged-with-dumping-untreat ed-waste 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a website. See 

http://www.ocala.com/article/20090506/ARTICLES/905061008?Title=Two-men-charged-with-dumping-untreated-waste 

for more information on Private Sewer Treatment Plant workers arrested after dispute over Public vs Private use of 

Spray Field. 

Comment ID 0598.001.003 

Author Name: Grant R. 

Organization: City of Titusville 

Original comment letter contains additional information about the Development of Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's 

Waters through a Web site like. See http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/index.htm for more information. 

Additional information on the proposed criteria can be found at FDEP's website: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/index.htm 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2328
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0605.001.001 

Author Name: Lee C. 

Organization: Audubon of Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

The copyrighted document contains comments submitted on Florida's biosolids rule (Chapter 62-640) by Audubon of
 

Florida on November 19, 2009.
 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced
 

without consent of the copyright holder.
 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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
 

Comment ID 0606-1.001.011 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of tables and figures including Table 1: 

Protective nutrient loads for the Tampa Bay estuary established by the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium, 

and accepted through separate administrative action by FDEP (acceptance of the 2002 RA, 2007 RA Update & 2009 

RA Addendum) and EPA (establishment of the 1998 federally-recognized TMDL for Tampa Bay), Figure 1: Observed 

improvements in annual average chlorophyll-a (ug/L; A) and light attenuation (m-1; B) for the four main bay segments of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2329
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Tampa Bay (1974-2008), Figure 2: Contributions of the various sources of nitrogen loads to Tampa Bay in the 1970s 

compared to the most recent estimates available for the 2003-2007 period (Source: TBEP 1994; Janicki Environmental, 

Inc. 2008), Figure 3: Comparison of population growth in the three counties bordering Tampa Bay and an indicator of 

bay eutrophication (annual average chlorophyll-a concentrations), Figure 4: Historic attainment of Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection chlorophyll-a thresholds (ug/L) for the main bay segments of Tampa Bay in comparison to key 

adaptive nutrient management strategy milestones. Annual average chlorophyll-a threshold concentrations for each of 

the bay segments based on long-term monitoring stations maintained by the Environmental Protection Commission of 

Hillsborough County are: Old Tampa Bay = 9.3 ug/L; Hillsborough Bay = 15 ug/L; Middle Tampa Bay = 8.5 ug/L; and 

Lower Tampa Bay = 5.1 ug/L, Figure 5: Seagrass acreage estimates for Tampa Bay from 1982 - 2008. An increase in 

the rate of seagrass expansion was seen for the 1999-2008 period in comparison to the previous decade's estimates 

(1988-1996) (Source: SWFWMD), Figure 6: Variation in young of the year striped mullet, Mugil cephalus, abundance in 

the Tampa Bay estuary. Peak indices of abundance were observed in 1998 and 2006 (Source: FWRI), Figure 7: 

Observed number of brown pelican, Pelecanus occidentalis, nesting pairs in the Tampa Bay estuary. Minimal counts 

observed in 2003 and 2004 were attributed to interactions with mammalian predators (Source: Hodgson et al 2006), 

and Figure 8: Watershed boundaries draining to the major bay segments of Tampa Bay. The nutrient loading (TN=total 

nitrogen; TP=total phosphorus) and chlorophyll-a concentration targets are listed for each bay segment. For Lower 

Tampa Bay, the remainder nutrient loads are for the combined subwatersheds of the Lower Boca Ciega Bay, Terra 

Ceia Bay, and Manatee River bay segments. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0606.001.002 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

The complete response package including attachments can be viewed and downloaded at the TBEP's Technical 

Website here: 

http://www.tbeptech.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:nmc-response-toepas- proposed-numericnutrient-criteria&catid=29:tampa-bay-nmc&Itemid=54 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a website. See 

http://www.tbeptech.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:nmc-response-toepas-proposed-numericnutrient-criteria&catid=29:tampa-bay-nmc&Itemid=54 for more information about estuaries from the Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program. 

Comment ID 0610-1.001.001 

Author Name: Giraud J. 

Organization: HeSaKe Environments, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment titled Effect of EM on Nitrogen Fixation by 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2330
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Bush Bean and Mungbean written by U.R. Sangakkara and T. Higa. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0610.001.002 

Author Name: Giraud J. 

Organization: HeSaKe Environments, Inc. 

For me, this is the missing link that I've been looking for 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a website. See 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8993313723654914866# for more information on EM•1® Plant Food Extract. 

Comment ID 0610.001.003 

Author Name: Giraud J. 

Organization: HeSaKe Environments, Inc. 

For further information please go to www.emamerica.com and my website www. hesakeenvironments.com 

Attached is a .pdf file on "Nitrogen Fixation" 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a website. Please see www.emamerica.com and 

www.hesakeenvironments.com for more information about EM1. 

Comment ID 0613.001.007 

Author Name: Musgrove M. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation 

Original comment letter contains additional information about increased application of phosphorus effects on yields and 

also about pricing the value of services being provided by ecosystems. 

I believe you have heard from farmers concerned about their livelihood and declining yields should they be forced to 

reduce application of fertilizer. I would like to call your attention to three-year study being done by UF IFAS researchers 

in what is called the 139 basin in southern Hendry County. As reported at a public meeting on the Long-Term Plan for 

Achieving Water Quality Goals for the Everglades Protection Area Tributary Basins on May 27, 2009: Simply increasing 

the application of phosphorus had no impact on yields. What impacted yields was releasing nutrients already in the soil 

by manipulating PH. [Morgan, McAvoy and Sato conserve@ufl.edu] 

On behalf of the Arthur R. Marshall Foundation, I also draw this panel's attention to a book published by the National 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2331
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Academies, Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making (2004) and the work of Dr. 

Robert Costanza and colleagues in pricing the value of services now being provided by ecosystems. Intrinsically 

ecosystems are - like a MasterCard experience -- "priceless" but in real life they turn out to have dollar values that more 

than justify preservation and restoration when it can be done. Don't look at the dollar-costs, without also looking at the 

dollar benefits of preserving and correcting. Especially in Florida, a state in which ion, one pillar of the economy, is 

dependant on clean water. 

Comment ID 0613.001.008 

Author Name: Musgrove M. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a PowerPoint presentation titled C-139 

Vegetable Production Demonstration Project by Kelly Morgan, Gene McAvoy and Shinjiro Sato. See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 0614.001.001 

Author Name: Bronson C. 

Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Best Management Practices for Gulf Citrus 

from Citrus Industry BMPs from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 0672.001.003 

Author Name: Reed K. 

Organization: 

Okay, if you want a copy of this, it's at www.g, as in George, n, as in Nate, t as in Thomas, dot net, forward slash, letter 

R, Z-O-O, forward slash water quality report 2010 dot doc. And that water quality report 2010 has no spaces, no lines or 

anything in between it, and you can get your own copy of this if you're wondering what I was talking about. Thank you. 

Original comment letter contains additional information regarding water quality data through a Web site. See 

www.gnt.net/rzoo/waterqualityreport2010.doc for more information. 

Comment ID 0884.001.011 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2332
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Wertephy A.
 

Organization: Palm Beach County MS4 Program
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in TECHNOLOGIES TO MEET NUMERIC 

NUTRIENT CRITERIA AT FLORIDA'S DOMESTIC WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES written by Carollo Engineers. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0884.001.016 

Author Name: Wertephy A.
 

Organization: Palm Beach County MS4 Program
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 4-1. Distributional Statistics 

Computed from the Natural Logarithm Transformed Data at Sites Located in WBIDs not Listed as Nutrient Impaired. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0884.001.017 

Author Name: Wertephy A.
 

Organization: Palm Beach County MS4 Program
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter addressed to Governor Crist 

regarding Numeric Nutrient Criteria Cost Implications for Florida POTWs. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0895.001.022 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Moreover, citizens can get their concerns on the record by attending public hearings planned for Feb. 16, 17 and 18 in 

Tallahassee, Orlando and West Palm Beach, as well as register to speak by visiting 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/rules/florida. 

Original comment letter contains additional information regarding registration for attendance of public meetings through 

a website link. See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/rules/florida. 

Comment ID 0895.001.024 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2333
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

For more information on the effort to prevent the EPA from jeopardizing Florida's economic recovery, please visit the 

Don't Tax Florida Web site at www.DontTaxFlorida.com. 

Original comment letter contains additional information regarding registration for attendance of public meetings through 

a website link. See www.DontTaxFlorida.com for more information. 

Comment ID 0895.001.025 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Moreover, citizens can get their concerns on the record by attending public hearings planned for Feb. 16, 17 and 18 in 

Tallahassee, Orlando and West Palm Beach, as well as register to speak by visiting 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/ruies/florida. 

Original comment letter contains additional information regarding registration for attendance of public meetings through 

a website link. See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/rules/florida. 

Comment ID 0895.001.027 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

For more information on the effort to prevent the EPA from jeopardizing Florida's economic recovery, please visit the 

Don't Tax Florida Web site at www.DontTaxFlorida.com. 

Original comment letter contains additional information regarding registration for attendance of public meetings through 

a website link. See www.DontTaxFlorida.com for more information. 

Comment ID 0897.001.005 

Author Name: Phillips J.
 

Organization: Florida Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
 

Original comment letter contains additional information regarding numeric nutrient criteria through a Web site. See 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/2005TMDL Report final 2-25-OS.pdf for more information. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2334
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Report, Page 7, http ://www.dep.state .fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/2005TMDL Report final 2-25- OS .pdf In light of the 

problems caused by narrative nutrient criteria the FDEP announced in the Winter of 2008 that it agreed that numeric 

nutrient criteria were needed for Florida. In fact, it tried to couch the issue as though it had been acting "proactively. 

Comment ID 0897.001.007 

Author Name: Phillips J. 

Organization: Florida Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a Web site. See 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/WATER/watersheds/docs/watershednetwork_v1i4.pdf for more information. 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/WATER/watersheds/docs/watershednetwork_v1i4.pdf If, as industry now contends, the TMDL 

Rule is working, we would not now be in a situation in which the majority of Florida's waterways that are impaired are in 

such a condition because of excessive nutrients. 

Comment ID 0897.001.009 

Author Name: Phillips J. 

Organization: Florida Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a Web site. See 

http://www.donttaxflorida.com/about1.shtml for more information. 

This is an organization made up largely of industry and agriculture and dedicated to opposing the setting of nutrient 

standards that would clean up Florida's water bodies. http://www.donttaxflorida.com/about1.shtml 

Comment ID 0907-6.001.001 

Author Name: Hilliard D. 

Organization: Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2335
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

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 

Comment ID 0910-1.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment B: Tampa Bay National Estuary 

Program Interlocal Agreement February 1998 executed and made effective February 27, 1998. See original comment 

letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606. 

Comment ID 0910-10.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment F: Tampa Bay Estuary Program 

(TBEP); Habitat Protection and Restoration Targets for Tampa Bay, Final Report. June 1995. Tampa Bay National 

Estuary Program Technical Publication Number 07-93. Prepared by Anthony J. Janicki, David L. Wade, and Douglas E. 

Robison; Coastal Environmental, Inc. for Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-11.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2336
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment G1: Nitrogen Allocation 

Meeting, Friday, June 14, 1996; Management Committee Actions with Revisions as recommended by TAC Water 

Quality Subcommittee. Final action taken by Management Committee at June 14, 1996 Nitrogen Allocation Meeting. 

[Tampa Bay RA 07/02 Attachment F-1]. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-12.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment G2: 2001-2005 Tampa Bay 

Nitrogen Management Strategy [Tampa Bay RA07/02 Attachment F-2] Agenda Item Number 7 Policy Board May 11, 

2001. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-13.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment H: Tampa Bay Estuary Program 

(TBEP); Nitrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay: Model Based Estimates of 1998 and 2010 Loads to Major Basins, and TN 

Load Reduction/Preclusion Apportionment; Final Report. July 2003. [Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) Technical 

Publication Number 04-03]. Prepared by Janicki Environmental, Inc. for Tampa Bay Estuary Program. See original 

comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-14.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment I: Tampa Bay Estuary Program 

(TBEP), Developing and Establishing a Process to Track the Status of Chlorophyll-a Concentrations and Light 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2337
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Attenuation to Support Seagrass Goals in Tampa Bay; Final Reports December 1999 and October 2000. Tampa Bay 

Estuary Program (TBEP) Technical Report 04-00. Prepared by Anthony Janicki, David Wade and J. Raymond Pribble; 

Janicki Environmental, Inc. for Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-15.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment J: Tampa Bay Estuary Program 

(TBEP); Baywide Environmental Monitoring Report 2002-2005. [Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) Technical 

Publication #06-06], December 2006. Editors: Amy Poe, Anthony J. Janicki, and Holly Greening. See original comment 

letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-16.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment K1: Letter dated November 5, 

2002 to Holly Greening, Tampa Bay Estuary Program from Daryll Joyner, Program Administrator, Bureau of Watershed 

Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP): re: Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection has concluded that the nitrogen management plan developed by Tamp Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) for 

Tampa Bay provides reasonable assurance that impaired areas will be addressed. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-17.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment K2 - Tampa Bay Watershed 

Management Summary dated July 29, 2002. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2338
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-18.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment L: Faxed letter from Jennifer 

Herndon, Technical Support Section, Geographic Planning and Technical Support Branch, Water Management 

Division, USEPA Region 4 to Jan Mandrup-Poulsen, Division of Water Facilities, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP); re: approval documents concerning Lake Thonotosassa and Tampa Bay TMDL nitrogen levels. See 

original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-19.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment M1: Tampa Bay National 

Estuary Program; Estimating Critical External Nitrogen loads for the Tampa Bay Estuary: An Empirically Based 

Approach to Setting Management Targets, Final Report. November 1996. [Tampa Bay National Estuary Program 

Technical Publication # 06-96 (94-444-14)]. Prepared by Anthony Janicki and David Wade, Coastal Envionmental, Inc. 

for Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-2.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment C1: Long Term Trends of 

Nitrogen Loading, Water Quality and Biological Indicators in Hillsborough Bay, Florida: Introduction prepared by J. O. R. 

Johansson. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2339
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0910-20.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment M2: Estimated Nitrogen Fluxes 

and Nitrogen-Chlorophyll Relationships in Tampa Bay, 1985-1994. In Treat, S. (ed.). Proceedings, Tampa Bay 

Scientific Information Symposium 3. 1996 Oct. 21-23; Clearwater, FL. 396 pp. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-21.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment M3: Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program Model Evaluation and Update: Chlorophyll a- Light Attenuation Relationship (March 2001). Prepared by 

Janicki Environmental, Inc. for Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). This report was prepared by Janicki 

Environmental, Inc. under Contract No. T-98-06 for the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-22.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment M4: Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program Model Evaluation and Update: Nitrogen Load - Chlorophyll a Relationship, July 2001. Prepared by A. Janicki, 

R. Pribble, and S. Janicki, Janicki Environmental, Inc. for Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). This report was 

prepared by Janicki Environmental, Inc. under Contract No. T-98-06 for the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. See original 

comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-23.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2340
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment including the following: Attachment N: 

Submittal of Tampa Bay 2007 Reasonable Assurance Update; Declaration of Cooperation and Tampa Bay 2007 

Reasonable Assurance Update; letter dated January 31, 2008; signed by Holly Greening Tampa Bay Estuary Program 

(TBEP) to Daryll Joyner, Acting Chief, Bureau of Standards and Special Projects. The article "Spatial and temporal 

variation in seagrass coverage in Southwest Florida assessing the relative effects of anthropogenic nutrient load 

reductions and rainfall in four contiguous estuaries" is copyrighted. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 797?805. 

Authors: D. A. Tomasko, C.A. Corbett, H.S. Greening and G.E. Raulerson. 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information that was removed from report (page 100 of pdf). 

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 

Supplemental material for comment ID 0606. 

Comment ID 0910-24.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment O: Letter dated May 28, 2008 to 

Holly Greening, Tampa Bay Estuary Program, from Drew Bartlett, Deputy Director, Division of Environmental 

Assessment and Restoration, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP); re: activities under the Nitrogen 

Management Strategy for Tampa Bay consititute reasonable progress. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2341
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0910-25.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment P: Final Nitrogen Management 

Consortium (NMC) Approved Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium Declaration; September 11, 2009: Tampa 

Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium Background and Summary in Support of Declaration; Sustaining the Recovery 

of the Tampa Bay Estuary. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-26.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 0910-27.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2342
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment R: A Multi-Scale Approach to 

Seagrass Recovery in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Prepared by Holly Greening, Lindsay Cross and Edward Sherwood; 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-28.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment S: Memorandum dated 

February 23, 2010 from Holly Greening, Executive Director, Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) to Ephraim King, 

Office of Science and Technology; Denise Keehner (OST) USEPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds 

(OWOW) USEPA; Jim Keating, Office of Science and Technology (OST) USEPA; Jim Giattina, Region 4 Office of 

Water (OW) USEPA; re: Algae Bloom in Tampa Bay. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-29.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment T1: Estimates of Total Nitrogen, 

Total Phosphorus and Total Suspended Solids to Tampa Bay, Florida, Technical Appendix: 1992-94 Total Nitrogen 

Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) Technical Publication #19-96. Prepared by Hans 

W. Zarbock, Anthony J. Janicki and Susan S. Janicki; Coastal Environmental, Inc. for Tampa Bay National Estuary 

Program. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-3.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2343
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 0910-30.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment T2: Estimates of Total Nitrogen, 

Total Phosphorus, Total Suspended Solids, and Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida: 1995­

1998. Prepared by R. Pribble, A. Janicki, H. Zarbock, S. Janicki, and M. Winowitch; Janicki Environmental, Inc. for 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). July 2001. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-31.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment T3: Estimates of Total Nitrogen, 

Total Phosphates, Total Suspended Solids, and Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida: 1999­

2003; Final Report, March 2005. Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) Technical Publication #02-05. Prepared by Amy 

Poe, Keith Hackett, Susan Janicki, Ray Pribble, and Anthony Janicki, Janicki Environmental, Inc. for Tampa Bay 

Estuary Program (TBEP). See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2344
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0910-32.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment T4: Estimates of Total Nitrogen, 

Total Phosphorus, Total Suspended Solids, and Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida: 2004­

2007; November 2008. Prepared by Janicki Environmental, Inc. for Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP). See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-33.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment U1: Downstreams Protective 

Loads to Tampa Bay: Public Comment from the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC), February 17, 

2010 (MS Powerpoint). The contact is Holly Greening, Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). See original comment 

letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-34.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment U2: Downstreams Protective 

Loads to Tampa Bay: Public Comment from the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC), Tallahassee, 

Florida, February 16, 2010. Contacts listed are: Tony Janicki and Holly Greening. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-35.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2345
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment V: Development of Proposed 

Tampa Bay Protective Total Phosphorous Loads. Prepared by Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC). 

See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-4.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment C3: Estimates of Total Nitrogen, 

Total Phosphorus, and Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida [Number 04-94] May 1994. Prepared by 

Hans Zarbock, P.E.; Anthony Janicki, Ph.D.; David Wade, Douglas Heimbach, Ph.D.; and Harold Wilson; Coastal 

Environmental, Inc. for Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (TBEP). See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-5.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2346
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Comment ID 0910-6.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 0910-7.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment C6: Nutrient Enrichment 

Studies of Natural Phytoplankton Populations in Tampa Bay: A Summary of Results June 1993 to August 2009. 

Prepared by J.O.R. Johansson, Bay Study Group, Waste Water Department, City of Tampa, Florida. See original 

comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-8.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2347
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment D: Partnership for Progress; 

The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) Action Plan 1995-1999. Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management 

Consortium (NMC) March 1998. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0910-9.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information. See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a 

Physical Item. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 0910.001.001 

Author Name: Brown R. 

Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment A- Charting the Course, the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2348
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay May 2006. Prepared by Nanette Holland, Mary 

Kelly Hoppe and Lindsay Cross for the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). See original comment letter. 

Contains supplemental information for comment ID 0606 

Comment ID 0911-2.001.001 

Author Name: Kirkland F. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a diagram Figure 13-10 Typical Cross 

Section Drawing of Reclaimed Bay Swamps of South Ft. Meade Hardee County by Mosaic. See original comment letter 

Comment ID 0911-3.001.001 

Author Name: Kirkland F. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a diagram Figure 13-12 Typical Cross 

Section Drawing of Reclaimed Mixed Wetland Hardwood of South Ft. Meade Hardee County by Mosaic. See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 0911-4.001.001 

Author Name: Kirkland F. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a diagram Figure 13-14 Typical Cross 

Section Drawing of Reclaimed Wet Prairie of South Ft. Meade Hardee County by Mosaic. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0911-5.001.001 

Author Name: Kirkland F. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a diagram Figure 13-13 Typical Cross 

Section Drawing of Reclaimed Freshwater Marsh of South Ft. Meade Hardee County by Mosaic. See original comment 

letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2349
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0911-6.001.001 

Author Name: Kirkland F. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a diagram Figure 13-13 Typical Cross 

Section Drawing of Reclaimed Freshwater Marsh of South Ft. Meade Hardee County by Mosaic. See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 0911-7.001.001 

Author Name: Kirkland F. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a diagram Figure 13-15 Typical Cross 

Section Drawing of Reclaimed Shrub Marsh Wetland of South Ft. Meade Hardee County by Mosaic. See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 0916.001.004 

Author Name: Kirkland F. 

Organization: 

Different ways for Mosaic to escape Responsibility. 

See figure 13-10: Mosaics Application note bottom of cross section refers to 6" inches of Muck as available? 

Muck is a vital part of wet lands or swamps and should be (Mandatory part of so called reclamation.) 

Not another if it falls out of the sky onto the project. 

See figure 13-12: This picture again shows another (if available) material Mulch this is another loop hole? 

If by chance in this catastrophe of an attempt to confuse all parties there are specifications pertaining to these figures. 

The (as available) statements create an escape route for Mosaic. 

This figure also fails to address any specifications as to the volume of the thickness the mulch. The importance of this 

mulch in keeping moisture from evaporating is crucial in the survival of vegetation. (Should be Mandatory) 

See figure 13-11, 13-13, 13, 14 and 13-15: All contain same as above paragraph. (Should be Mandatory) 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2350
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Big Question: Unless the natural layers of hard Pan, clay etc are not in their correct layers and density it seems 

common since that water will dissipate through the sand to a less natural level or place. As sand is used a filtration 

media for the simple reason water travels through it with ease. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 13-10, Typical Cross Section Drawings of Reclaimed 

Bay Swamps from Mosaic. See original comment letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 13-11, Typical Cross Section Drawing of Reclaimed 

Mixed Wetland Hardwood from Mosaic. See original comment letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 13-12, Typical Cross Section Drawing of Reclaimed 

Mixed Wetland Hardwood from Mosaic. See original comment letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 13-13, Typical Cross Section Drawing of Reclaimed 

Freshwater Marsh from Mosaic. See original comment letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 13-14, Typical Cross Section Drawing of Reclaimed 

Wet Prairie. See original comment letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 13-15, Typical Cross Section Drawing of Reclaimed 

Shrub Marsh Wetland. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.005 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Experience in Establishing Nutrient Water Quality Criteria/Standards 

Dr. G. Fred Lee has been active in investigating the impacts of nutrients on water quality since 

the early 1960s. Additional information on his work in this area is appended to these 

comments; many of his numerous papers and reports on the sources, water quality significance, 

assessment, regulation, and control of aquatic plant nutrients are available on our website 

[www.gfredlee.com] in the Excessive Fertilization/Eutrophication section at 

http://www.gfredlee.com/pexfert2.htm. 

Original comment letter contains additional information through as Web site. See http://www.gfredlee.com/pexfert2.htm 

for more information about Excessive Fertilization/Eutrophication. 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.007 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2351
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

We have investigated the impacts of nutrient loads on eutrophication-related water quality of many waterbodies. Our 

single most comprehensive effort was a US EPA-sponsored review and synthesis of nutrient load and response data 

collected on US waterbodies as part of the Organization for Economic and Development (OCED) international 

eutrophication study. The OECD eutrophication study was a 5-year, $50-million investigation of about 200 waterbodies 

in North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, to evaluate the impacts of nutrient loads on the algae-related 

water quality of lakes and reservoirs. Using Vollenweider's normalized load- response model developed through his 

OECD eutrophication study work, Lee and his colleagues described empirical relationships between normalized P load 

and eutrophicationrelated water quality characteristics for a diverse group of lakes and reservoirs across the US, 

relationships that were in keeping with those subsequently developed upon the entire OECD study database. They also 

expanded the original Vollenweider-OECD eutrophication study model concepts to include several additional fertilization 

impacts including water clarity, hypolimnetic oxygen depletion rates. The synthesis report for US waterbodies was 

published by the US EPA as, 

(Rast, W. and Lee, G. F., "Summary Analysis of the North American (US Portion) OECD Eutrophication Project: 

Nutrient Loading-Lake Response Relationships and Trophic State Indices," EPA 600/3-78-008, US EPA-Corvallis 

(1978).)

 Original comment letter contains additional information from OECD Eutrophication Project. See original comment 

letter. 

A summary paper covering that report was published as a featured article:
 

Lee, G. F.; Rast, W. and Jones, R. A., "Eutrophication of Water Bodies: Insights for an Age-Old Problem," Environ. Sci.
 

& Technol. 12:900-908 (1978). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/Eutrophication-EST.pdf


 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

The final overall OECD report was published as: 

OECD, "Eutrophication of Waters, Monitoring, Assessment, and Control," Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

Development, Paris (1982).

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

Following the completion of their work on the US OECD database, Dr. Lee and colleagues continued the OECD-type 

eutrophication studies of waterbodies and expanded the total database foundation of the model beyond the OECD 

database, to more than 700 waterbodies of varied character located in areas covering most of the world. Several of his 

papers that describe that work include: 

Jones, R. A., and Lee, G. F., "Recent Advances in Assessing the Impact of Phosphorus Loads on EutrophicationRelated Water Quality," Journ. Water Research 16:503-515 (1982). 

http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/RecentAdvWaterRes.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

Jones, R. A. and Lee, G. F., "Eutrophication Modeling for Water Quality Management: An Update of the Vollenweider11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2352
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

OECD Model," World Health Organization's Water Quality Bulletin 11:67-174, 118 (1986). 

http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/voll_oecd.html

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference regarding excessive fertilization of 

waterbodies. See original comment letter. 

More recently a summary of our work on excessive fertilization of waterbodies was published in: 

Jones-Lee, A., and Lee, G. F., "Eutrophication (Excessive Fertilization)," Water Encyclopedia: Surface and Agricultural 

Water, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ pp 107-114 (2005). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/WileyEutrophication.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as references. See original comment letter. 

Lee and Jones-Lee have further expanded the Vollenweider-OECD normalized load-response relationships to define 

such a relationship between phosphorus loads and the fish production in waterbodies: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as references. See original comment letter. 

Lee, G. F. and Jones, R. A., "Effects of Eutrophication on Fisheries," Reviews in Aquatic Sciences, 5:287-305, CRC 

Press, Boca Raton, FL (1991). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/fisheu.html

 Original comment letter contains additional information as references. See original comment letter. 

That paper demonstrated that, as expected, altering the phosphorus loads to waterbodies impacts the fish production in 

a waterbody. We discussed the importance of considering impacts on fish production when reducing nutrient loads or 

establishing nutrient criteria for a waterbody. 

They also demonstrated the utility of the modeling approach in assessing ecosystem functioning: 

Jones, R. A. and Lee, G. F., "Use of Vollenweider-OECD Modeling to Evaluate Aquatic Ecosystem Functioning," 

Functional Testing of Aquatic Biota for Estimating Hazards of Chemicals, ASTM STP 988, Amer. Soc. Test. & Mat., 

Philadelphia, pp. 17-27 (1988). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/EcosystemFunctionOECD.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference regardin the OECD eutrophication modeling 

approach, and applied and described the use of the model for water quality evaluation and management. See original 

comment letter. 

Lee and his colleagues investigated and documented the predictive capability of the Vollenweider-OECD eutrophication 

modeling approach, and applied and described the use of the model for water quality evaluation and management:

 Original comment letter contains additional information as references. See original comment letter. 

Rast, W., Jones, A., and Lee, G. F., "Predictive Capability of US OECD Phosphorus Loading-Eutrophication Response 

Models," Journ. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 55(7):990-1003 (1983). 

http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/PredictiveCapabilityOECD.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

Lee and his graduate students applied the Vollenweider-OECD modeling approach to managing excessive fertilization 

of water supply reservoirs in, for example: 

Archibald, E. M. and Lee, G. F., "Application of the OECD Eutrophication Modeling Approach to Lake Ray Hubbard, 

Texas," Journ. AWWA 73:590-599 (1981). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/OECDLakeRayHub.pdf 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2353
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information for as a reference regarding assessing the impacts of 

phosphorus on waterbodies is the role of total phosphorus versus algal-available phosphorus in impacting the 

fertilization of waterbodies. See original comment letter. 

Throughout his work it has been clear that a key factor that must be considered in assessing the impacts of phosphorus 

on waterbodies is the role of total phosphorus versus algal-available phosphorus in impacting the fertilization of 

waterbodies. This issue was understood and discussed in the technical literature 30 years ago:

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

Lee, G. F., Jones, R. A., and Rast, W., "Availability of Phosphorus to Phytoplankton and its Implications for Phosphorus 

Management Strategies," IN: Phosphorus Management Strategies for Lakes, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann 

Arbor, MI (1980). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/Avail-P.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference regarding appropriate approaches for 

controlling phosphorus from agricultural land runoff to improve those conditions, focusing in part on the comparative 

effects of controlling total phosphorus versus algal-available P in runoff waters. See original comment letter. 

A number of our more recent papers/reports discuss technical deficiencies in the US EPA's position that all forms of 

particulate phosphorus are available, or become available, to support algal growth. We have become involved in the 

issues of the development of appropriate approaches for controlling phosphorus from agricultural land runoff to improve 

those conditions, focusing in part on the comparative effects of controlling total phosphorus versus algal-available P in 

runoff waters. These issues have been discussed in: 

Lee, G. F., "Assessing Algal Available Phosphorus," Submitted for Inclusion in the Proceedings of US EPA Science 

Symposium: "Sources, Transport, and Fate of Nutrients in the Mississippi River and Atchafalaya River Basins," 

Minneapolis, MN, November 7- 9 (2006). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/AvailPEPASymp06.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

Lee, G. F., "A Proposal for Assessing Algal-Available Phosphorus Loads in Runoff from Irrigated Agriculture in the 

Central Valley of California," Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, November (2006). 

http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/AlgalAssayAvailP.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

Lee, G. F., "Assessing Algal Available Phosphorus," Proceedings of US EPA Science Symposium: Sources, Transport, 

and Fate of Nutrients in the Mississippi River and Atchafalaya River Basins, Minneapolis, MN, November 7-9 (2006). 

http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/AvailPEPASymp06.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

Cowen, W. F., and Lee, G. F., "Phosphorus Availability in Particulate Materials Transported by Urban Runoff," Journ. 

Water Pollut. Control Fed. 48(3):580-591 (1976). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/AvailPParticulatesCowen.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference regarding appropriate approaches for 

controlling phosphorus from agricultural land runoff to improve those conditions, focusing in part on the comparative 

effects of controlling total phosphorus versus algal-available P in runoff waters. See original comment letter 

They have also been discussed in our Stormwater Runoff Water Quality Newsletters NL- 1-2, 1-5, 4-3/4, 5-1, 6-1, 6-2, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2354
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

7-6/7, 9-1/2, 9-7, 9-8, 9-10, 10-1, 10-2, 10-4, 10-5, 10-6, 10-13, 11-2, 11-5, 11-7/8, 11-9,11-10. 12-3, 12-5, 12-6, 12-7/8 

available at http://www.gfredlee.com/newsindex.htm. As discussed in those sources, and elsewhere, the literature 

shows that the US EPA position of requiring phosphorus regulation based on total phosphorus, rather than algalavailable phosphorus, is not technically valid and can cause agricultural and urban interests to spend large amounts of 

money for phosphorus control beyond that needed to control excessive fertilization of waterbodies.

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference showing that the US EPA position of 

requiring phosphorus regulation based on totalphosphorus, rather than algal-available phosphorus, is not technically 

valid . See original comment letter. 

In 2002 Lee and Jones-Lee published a paper discussing the development of technically valid nutrient 

criteria/standards:

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

Lee, G. F. and Jones-Lee, A., "Developing Nutrient Criteria/TMDLs to Manage Excessive Fertilization of Waterbodies," 

Proceedings Water Environment Federation, TMDL 2002 Conference, Phoenix, AZ, November (2002). 

http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/WEFN-Criteria.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

That paper discussed why the US EPA statistical approach for developing nutrient criteria as set forth in, 

"U.S. EPA. 2000a. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs. Office of Water, Washington, 

DC. EPA-822-B-00-001.

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

U.S. EPA. 2000b. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

EPA-822-B-00-002.

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

U.S. EPA. 2001. Nutrient Criteria Technical Manual: Estuarine and Coastal Marine Waters. Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-01-003), and wetlands (U.S. EPA, 2007)

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

and in our comments on the US EPA RTAG efforts available on our website. 

it also discussed why a site-specific approach that considers the waterbody characteristics and water quality 

management objectives should be used, and how such an approach could be developed and implemented. That 

approach has been adopted by the California State Water Resources Control Board as discussed in: 

SWRCB, "Estuarine Nutrient Numeric Endpoint Coastal Stakeholder Advisory Group (Coastal SAG) Meeting May 1, 

2009," PowerPoint Slides, SWRCB, Sacramento, CA, May (2009). 

http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/CoastalSAGMeeting5-1-2009.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

SWRCB, "Estuarine NNE Project - NNE STRTAG Meeting Conference Call August 17, 2009," California State Water 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2355
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Coastal Nutrient Development Program Sacramento, CA, August 17 (2009). 

http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/STRTAG8-17-09Mtg.pdf

 Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference. See original comment letter. 

The State of California has Water Resources Control Board rejected the US EPA RTAG statistics-based approach in 

favor of a site-specific approach for coastal waterbodies. This issues have been discussed in our Stormwater Runoff 

Water Quality Newsletters, NL-1-3, 5-1, 9-1/2, 9-8, 10-4, 10-5, 10-6, 10-7, 10-13, 11-2, 11-5, 11-9, 12-3, 12-5, 12-6, and 

12-7/8. 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.029 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a Web site. See http://www.gfredlee.com/pexfert2.htm 

for additional information about normalized P loading being related to in-lake phosphorus concentrations through 

Vollenweider's empirical relationships. 

As noted above, that normalized P loading is also related to in-lake phosphorus concentrations through Vollenweider's 

empirical relationships, although that is not a reliable eutrophication-related water quality response parameter. 

Additional papers and reports that address these issues are available at www.gfredlee.com in the Excessive 

Fertilization/Eutrophication section [http://www.gfredlee.com/pexfert2.htm] 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.041 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Thus, as discussed in our writings, it is important to understand how nutrients added to a waterbody actually result in 

impairment of the uses of the waterbody. The presentations at the CWEMF Delta nutrient workshop showed that there 

is a poor understanding of the relationships between nutrient concentrations/loads and macrophytes biomass that 

develops in a waterbody. (see discussion by L. Anderson in Nutrient Sources for Growth of Exotic Aquatic Plants in the 

Sacramento San Joaquin Delta and G. F. Lee in the CWEMF Delta Nutrient Workshop synopsis at 

http://www.cwemf.org/workshops/NutrientLoadWrkshp.pdf, 

http://www.cwemf.org/workshops/DeltaNutrientsWrkshp/Nutrientworkshop_files/frame.htm, 

http://www.cwemf.org/workshops/DeltaNutrientsWrkshp/Nutrientworkshop_files/CWEMF_W S_synopsis.pdf. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2356
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

and in, 

Lee, G. F., and Jones-Lee, A., "Delta Nutrient Water Quality Modeling Workshop - Background Information," Report of 

G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, September (2007). 

http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/NutrWorkshopRev4.pdf) 

Original comment letter contains additional information as a Web site. See 

http://www.cwemf.org/workshops/NutrientLoadWrkshp.pdf, 

http://www.cwemf.org/workshops/DeltaNutrientsWrkshp/Nutrientworkshop_files/frame.htm, 

http://www.cwemf.org/workshops/DeltaNutrientsWrkshp/Nutrientworkshop_files/CWEMF_W S_synopsis.pdf., and, Lee, 

G. F., and Jones-Lee, A., "Delta Nutrient Water Quality Modeling Workshop - Background Information," Report of G. 

Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, September (2007). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/NutrWorkshopRev4.pdf) 

for more information about nutrients that are added to a waterbody actually result in impairment of the uses of the 

waterbody. 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.045 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Original comment letter contains additional information about alternative approaches for trophic state classifications. 

Beginning on page 47 is a discussion of the Carlson Trophic State Index. The Carlson Trophic state index approach 

follows a "limnological" study rather than problem-solution approach to developing nutrient criteria. Lee et al. (1995) 

discussed the development of a trophic state classification based on water quality considerations, i.e., based on the 

impacts of nutrients on the beneficial uses of waterbodies. 

Lee, G. F., Jones-Lee, A. and Rast, W., "Alternative Approaches for Trophic State Classification for Water Quality 

Management, Parts I and II: (Suitability of Existing Trophic State Classification Systems and Application of 

Vollenweider-OECD Eutrophication Modeling Approach)," Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates El Macero, CA (1995). 

Available from gfredlee@aol.com as EF011 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.047 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Dr. G. Fred Lee Experience in Excessive 

Fertilization/Eutrophication of Lakes, Reservoirs, Estuaries and Near-Shore Marine Waters (pages 14-20). See original 

comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2357
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 0922-1.001.065 

Author Name: Fred Lee G. 

Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a Web site. See 

http://www.cwemf.org/workshops/DeltaNutrientsWrkshp/Nutrientworkshop_files/CWEMF_ WS_synopsis.pdf for more 

information about water quality problems in Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. 

As discussed in Lee and Jones-Lee's synopsis of the CWEMF Delta Nutrient 

workshop,[http://www.cwemf.org/workshops/DeltaNutrientsWrkshp/Nutrientworkshop_files/CWEMF_ WS_synopsis.pdf] 

the primary nutrient-caused water quality problem in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta is aquatic plants - water 

hyacinth, Egeria, and benthic algae. Bluegreen benthic algae that develop in domestic water supply reservoirs in that 

system cause severe taste and odor problems that necessitate in increased expenditures for treating the water for 

domestic use. 

Comment ID 0931.001.001 

Author Name: EPA US 

Organization: US Environmental Protection Agency 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 0942.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2358
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Reed K. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information (Please see Poquito Park's "Healthy Beaches" reports.) for 

Poquito Park from K. Reed. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0942.001.012 

Author Name: Reed K. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as a photograph of 3 boys by a river taken in 1966. See original 

comment letter. 

1966 Garnier's Bayou That's me with the sons of Dr. Robert Larson at the northeast end of Garnier's Bayou. 

Comment ID 0952.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: Karlson's Beefmasters 

Original comment letter contains additional information from the commenter that appear to be some random notes and 

unclear photographs from a cattle farm. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0953.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in the form of a document titled, "It's Time to 

End the Slime: A Primer on EPA's Proposed Rule to End Sewage, Fertilizer And Animal Manure." See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 0964-1.001.001 

Author Name: Price J. 

Organization: Rayonier 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2359
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 0964-2.001.001 

Author Name: Price J. 

Organization: Rayonier 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the document Silviculture Best 

Management Practices by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0964.001.006 

Author Name: Price J. 

Organization: Rayonier 

Original comment letter contains additional information for BMPs in an exerpt from Florida's Manual of Silviculture Best
 

Management Practices. See original comment letter.
 

Excerpt from Florida's Manual of Silviculture Best Management Practices: 


Best Management Practices for Fertilizer Use:
 

Do not apply fertilizer or locate fertilizer transfer/loading areas within the Primary Zone of the Stream Side Management
 

Zone. Whenever practical, apply fertilizer to maximize the uptake of nutrients, which might otherwise move off site;
 

consider the use of slow release fertilizer when conditions are appropriate. 


Fertilizer Application Limits: Good nutrient management is essential for healthy forest production and environmental
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2360
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

protection. The key to success is identifying the needs of target plants and matching fertilization operations to those 

needs. One way to accomplish this is to develop and implement a nutrient management plan based on soil, water, plant 

and organic material sample analysis, along with expected or desired timber yields (see Florida Extension Service 

Circular 1230). This should result in fertilizer application rates that minimize the amount of available nutrients while 

optimizing growth and yield. In addition, it should be understood that not all silviculture strategies require, or can benefit 

from, forest fertilization. Where forest fertilization is conducted, such operations should be planned and implemented 

with consultation from a knowledgeable professional, and in accordance with all applicable BMPs or other measures 

that reduce nutrient delivery to water resources. 

To that end, the following BMP represents fertilizer application limits not to be exceeded during forest fertilization 

operations (these are not recommended rates of application): 

Elemental Nitrogen 

No more than 1000 Ibs/acre over any 20-year period. 

No more than 2501bs/acre for any 3 -year period. 

No more than 80 Ibs/acre during the first 2-yrs of newly established plantations. 

Elemental Phosphorus 

No more than 250 lbs/acre over any 20-year period. 

No more than 80 Ibs/acre for any 3 -year period. 

Comment ID 0985-1.001.001 

Author Name: No Surname Provided M. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a photo of tire tracks in mud from a public 

citizen. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 0985.001.002 

Author Name: No Surname Provided M. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a Web site. See 

http://web.naplesnews.com/03/10/naples/d990513a.htm for more information about the dumping of sewer sludge in 

DeSoto County. 

Please read: http://web.naplesnews.com/03/10/naples/d990513a.htm Deep Trouble: Organic disaster In out-of-the-way 

DeSoto County, dumping of sewage sludge - the residue of human waste Wednesday, October 8, 2003 By JEREMY 

COX, jgcox@naplesnews.com 

Comment ID 0988.001.002 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2361
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Giraud J. 

Organization: HeSaKe Environments, Inc. 

It can be used in conjunction with fertilizers and pesticides lessening the quantities needed or can used in a sustainable 

organic biomass fermenting technology, EM Technology® Since 1982, a variety of applications have been developed. 

We have put together a video that runs through some of the most common applications with EM•1® to introduce you to 

the world of microbes. Visit http://www.hesakeenvironments.com/ and follow through by clicking on EM America to find 

out more. 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site. See http://www.hesakeenvironments.com/ 

for more information about EM Technology®. 

Comment ID 0988.001.003 

Author Name: Giraud J. 

Organization: HeSaKe Environments, Inc. 

Then last month my colleagues at LinkIn showed me http://video.google.com/videoplay? 

docid=8993313723654914866# Which is a BBC documentary about the Amazonian Black Soil and I realized the 

combination of yeast from the villagers bodies and lactic acid bacteria from lactating mothers and village animals 

together with the phototrophic bacteria (blue/green algae) from the river was what encourages the other "beneficent 

microorganisms" found in Terra Preta de Índios, to flourish 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site link. See http://video.google.com/videoplay? 

docid=8993313723654914866# for a BBC documentary about the Amazonian Black Soil. 

Comment ID 0995.001.005 

Author Name: Hilliard M. 

Organization: National Garden Clubs, Inc. 

According to information found on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website 

(www.epa/gov/waterscience/standards/rules/florida/factsheet.html) on January 14, 2009, EPA made a determination 

that numeric nutrient water quality standards in the state of Florida were necessary to meet the requirements of the 

Clean Water Act passed by Congress in 1972. The EPA proposed rulemaking will satisfy the terms of the 

determination. Adoption is the first step. Enforcement must follow. 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a website. See 

www.epa/gov/waterscience/standards/rules/florida/factsheet.html for more information on EPA's determination 

regarding Florida water quality requirements. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2362
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1014.001.007 

Author Name: Carlton B. 

Organization: Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter from FDEP regarding Shell and 

Prairie Creek Watershed Management Plan Reasonable Assurance Documentation August 2008. See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 1086-1.001.001 

Author Name: Cooper J. 

Organization: Protect Our Watersheds 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment regarding the following phosphate mining 

applications: Phosphate Mining Permit Applications, including Mosaic Ona Mine, SAJ-1998-2067 (IP-MGH) (20,000 

acres); Mosaic South Fort Meade Mine, SAJ-1997-4099 (IP-MGH) (11,000 acres); Mosaic Fort Meade Mine 

Modification, SAJ-1990-3894 (Mod 18-MGH) (2-20-09); Mosaic Altman Tract, SAJ-2005-10610 (IP-MGH) (2048 acres); 

Mosaic Pine Level (24,000 acres); CF Industries South Pasture Mine and South Pasture Extension (17,000+7500 

acres); Mosaic Hopewell Mining Unit 11 (113 acres); Mosaic Surface Tract, Four Corners Lonesome Mine (76 acres); 

Mosaic Texaco Tract, Wingate Mine (4345 acres); Lease of 551 acres within Mosaic South Fort Meade Mine property. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1086-2.001.001 

Author Name: Cooper J. 

Organization: Protect Our Watersheds 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a personal correspondence between 

Colonel Pantano of the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers and Jennifer Derby of the Wetlands and Marine 

Regulatory Section regarding Mosaic Fertilizer LLC. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1086-3.001.001 

Author Name: Cooper J. 

Organization: Protect Our Watersheds 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a personal correspondence between 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2363
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Colonel Pantano of the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers and Thomas Welborn of Wetlands, Coastal and 

Oceans Branch regarding the Need for Area Wide Environmental Impact Statement “Bone Valley” Phosphate Mining 

Region (Peace River Watershed, Florida). See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1087-1.001.011 

Author Name: Pearson S. 

Organization: City of Gainesville Public Works Department 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

References: 

Alachua County Environmental Protection Department. 2007. Gainesville Creeks: A Status Report on Baseflow Water 

Quality, Stormwater and Ecosystem Health for the Orange Creek Basin 1998-2003. Prepared for: St. Johns River Water 

Management District, Palatka, Florida. 

Florida Demographic Survey, February 2010. At http://edr.state.fl.us/population. 

Florida Geological Survey, 1985. Sinkhole Type, Development, and Distribution in Florida. Prepared by the U.S. 

Geological Survey in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Water Resources 

Management and the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee, Florida, 1985. 

Gao, Xueqling, Douglas Gilbert, Wayne Magley. 2006. Nutrient TMDL for Alachua Sink, WBID 2720A. Prepared by 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resource Management, Division of Watershed 

Management. 

Jones Edmunds & Associates. 2004. Sweetwater Branch Creek Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for: City of 

Gainesville Public Works Department, Gainesville Florida. 

Jones Edmunds & Associates et al. 2006. Tumblin Creek Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for: City of 

Gainesville Public Works Department and City of Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, Gainesville Florida. 

Jones Edmunds & Associates et al. 2010. Sweetwater Branch/Paynes Prairie Sheetflow Restoration Project ­

Preliminary Engineering Report. Prepared for: Gainesville Regional Utilities and City of Gainesville Public Works 

Department, Gainesville, Florida. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. 40 CFR Part 131- Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Land 

and Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule. Vol. 75, No. 16/ Tuesday, January 26, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing 

Waters. Fact Sheet; January 2010. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2364
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. TSD for U.S. EPAs Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for FL Inland 

Surface Fresh Waters, Chapter 2: Methodology for Deriving U.S. EPAs Proposed Criteria for Streams. Document ID 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.2. January 15, 2010. 

Comment ID 1141.001.003 

Author Name: Coe J. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information about a program guidance memo from the FDEP. See original 

comment letter. 

In 2003, Florida Department released a program guidance memo, 0WM0302, dated July 18, 2003. Page 10, section C, 

states, "The source of the parameters of concern result from the variety of activities, including waste oil handling, 

release of antifreeze, free product spills, washing and other vehicle maintenance activities are regulated as industrial 

wastewater under Rule 62-620.200, Section 22 of the Florida Administrative Code, unless the facility is connected to a 

permitted domestic wastewater collection system." 

Page 12, Section 2 goes on to say, "Activities which generate or process and non-processed wastewater discharge to 

surface or ground water is the subject to permitting in accordance with Chapter 62.620." 

In 2008, July -- January -- I mean July 8, 2008, I personally met with D.E.P. in Tallahassee after numerous failed 

attempts for enforcement of these mobile operations. At the same time, this booklet was forwarded to the U.S. E.P.A. 

headquarters. 

Comment ID 1159.001.001 

Author Name: Lewis D. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information to refer to a peer reviewed article. See original comment letter. 

Please read Environmental Science & Technology,Vol.36,No.13 PP.257A-296A/2789-3044. dated-July 1,2002. This 

peer reviewed article is written by Dr. David L. Lewis, a former Microbiologist with E.P.A. 

Comment ID 1164-1.001.008 

Author Name: Baer W. 

Organization: City of Altamonte Springs Public Works and Utilities 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2365
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The City supports our peer associations and agencies conducting more in depth evaluations of the proposed numeric 

nutrient criteria. As such, we are attaching general comments prepared by the FSA and the FDEP as reference. In 

addition, we are providing links to the following FDEP documents; Review of Proposed Criteria for Protection of Lakes, 

Review of Proposed Criteria for Protection of Streams and Springs/Clear Streams and Review of Proposed Criteria for 

Protection of Downstream Lakes. The FDEP link is http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wgssp/nutrients/federal.htm. 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site. See 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wgssp/nutrients/federal.htm for additional information from the FDEP documents: 

Review of Proposed Criteria for Protection of Lakes, Review of Proposed Criteria for Protection of Streams and 

Springs/Clear Streams and Review of Proposed Criteria for Protection of Downstream Lakes. 

Comment ID 1173-1.001.001 

Author Name: Dangler H. 

Organization: Ocean River Institute 

Original comment letter contains additional information of contact information from The Ocean River Institute. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1177.001.004 

Author Name: Vance A. 

Organization: Bonita Springs City Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site. See floridaspecialdistricts.org for more a list 

of NPDES MS4 storm water or wastewater permit requirements. 

In Florida there are 846 small governments that are charged with either NPDES MS4 storm water permitting 

requirements, or wastewater requirements. And a source I would recommend for this would be to go to the website 

floridaspecialdistricts.org, and there's an official list at that site. 

Comment ID 1213-1.001.003 

Author Name: Reynolds R. 

Organization: 

2) It is also my desire to educate you on the terrible travesty that is the current wastewater ‘process’ in Monroe County 

(the Florida Keys), where I own a home on No Name Key. It is my hope that your agency will learn from my own 

experiences as a property owner and citizen about the incompetence, fiscal waste, politics and significant challenges 

that stand in the way of protecting our waters. By learning of my firsthand experiences, you will learn how deeply-flawed 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2366
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

and incompetent wastewater in Monroe County has become and, I hope, can begin to create an intelligent, costeffective, solution to protect our precious resources rather than perpetuate the politics and waste of taxpayer money 

that is rampant at this time, and thus, in part, why past pollution concerns have yet to be addressed and a compliance 

extension is currently being sought by local ‘officials’. Your help is deeply needed. Please. 

NO NAME KEY FLORIDA 

Original comment letter contains additional information about the background and history of nutrient pollution from No 

Name Key, FL through the end of the document. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1213-2.001.001 

Author Name: Reynolds R. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater 

Service Area from the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1213-3.001.001 

Author Name: Reynolds R. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a cost estimate for providing central sewer 

treatment for No Name Key from an e-mail chain with attachments. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1213-4.001.001 

Author Name: Reynolds R. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for background information on nutrient related 

problems in No Name Key from the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1213-5.001.001 

Author Name: Reynolds R. 

Organization: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2367
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information for No Name Key and the Monroe County Sanitary 

Wastewater Master Plan Water Quality Assessment and Reasonable Assurances Document among Monroe County, 

State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and United States Environmental Protection from the No Name 

Key Property Owners Association. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1213-6.001.001 

Author Name: Reynolds R. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment titled Proposed Designation of the Water of 

the Florida Keys as Outstanding Florida Water written by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1213-7.001.001 

Author Name: Reynolds R. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the form of background materials for the December 2008 

Board of Monroe County Commissioners Meeting. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1217-10.001.002 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Figures and Tables in pages 22-66 of pdf. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1217-11.001.001 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, 

Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, and Tampa Bay Estuary Program Reference Documents from Mosaic Fertilizers LLC. 

See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2368
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1217-12.001.001 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of approval document for the Lake 

Thonotosassa total nitrogen and total phosphorus TMDL and the Tampa Bay nitrogen TMDL. See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 1217-3.001.001 

Author Name: Voyles J. 

Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a list of attachments to comment ID 1217­

2.001 from Mosaic Fertilizer LLC. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1261-1.001.020 

Author Name: Dinneen J. 

Organization: Volusia County 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Attachment 1, including a map of impaired 

watersheds and a table of assessment data from Volusia County, Florida. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.092 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site link. See http://www.epa.gov/quality/ for more 

information about addressing uncertainty in environmental decisions. 

Such a framework for addressing uncertainty in environmental decisions is contained in EPA's quality system 

(http://www.epa.gov/quality/), of which guidance on systematic planning and DQOs is one element. That guidance 

describes in some detail a systematic approach in which decision errors can be evaluated for a wide range of 

environmental decisions, forming a basis for discussion among interested and affected parties as to the degree of error 

that may be tolerated associated with the decision at hand. Other EPA guidance documents also present information on 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2369
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

how to address uncertainty in water resource management decisions. Among these are the Consolidated Assessment 

and Listing Methodology (USEPA 2002), which emphasizes decisions regarding designated use attainment, and the 

Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual - Wetlands (USEPA 2008a). The latter provides the most direct, though 

somewhat limited, consideration of decision errors in numeric nutrient criteria development. 

Comment ID 1292-1.001.097 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

REFERENCES 

Adams, M.B., Angradi, T.R., and Kochenderfer, J.N. 1997. Stream water and soil solution responses to 5 years of 

nitrogen and sulfur additions at the Fernow Experimental Forest, West Virginia. Forest Ecology and Management 

95:79-91. 

Aubertin, G.M., Smith, D.W., and Patric, J.H. 1973. Quantity and quality of streamflow after urea fertilization on a 

forested watershed: First year results. 88-100 in Forest Fertilization Symposium Proceedings. General Technical Report 

NE-3. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 

Beltran, B.J., Amatya, D.M., Youssef, M., Jones, M., Callahan, T.J., Skaggs, R.W., and Nettles, J.E. 2010. Impacts of 

fertilization on water quality of a drained pine plantation: A worst case scenario. Journal of Environmental Quality 

39:293-303. 

Binkley, D. 2001. Patterns and processes of variation in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in forested streams. 

Technical Bulletin No. 836. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Binkley, D., Allen, H.L., and Burnham, H. 1999. Water quality effects of forest fertilization. Technical Bulletin No. 782. 

Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Binkley, D., Ice, G., Kaye, J., and Williams, C.A. 2004. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in forest streams of the 

United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(5):1277-1291. 

Bradford, M.E., and Peters, R.H. 1987. The relationship between chemically analyzed phosphorus fractions and 

bioavailable phosphorus. Limnology and Oceanography 32(5):1124-1137. 

Bronk, D.A., See, J.H., Bradley, P., and Killberg, L. 2006. DON as a source of bioavailable nitrogen for phytoplankton. 

Biogeosciences Discussions 3:1247-1277. 

Campbell, R.G. 1989. Water quality mid-year report. Weyerhaeuser Research and Development Report. New Bern, 

NC: New Bern Forestry Research Station. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2370
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Carey, R.O., Vellidis, G., Lowrance, R., and Pringle, C.M. 2007. Do nutrients limit algal periphyton in small blackwater 

Coastal Plain streams? Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:1183-1193. 

Comerford, N.B., Neary, D.G., and Mansell, R.S. 1992. The effectiveness of buffer strips for ameliorating offsite 

transport of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides from silvicultural operations. Technical Bulletin No. 631. Research 

Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Dubois, M.R., Straka, T.J., Crim, S.D., and Robinson, L.J. 2003. Costs and cost trends for forestry practices in the 

South. Forest Landowner 62(2):3-9. 

Edwards, P.J., Kochenderfer, J.N., and Seegrist, D.W. 1991. Effects of forest fertilization on streamwater chemistry in 

the Appalachians. Water Resources Bulletin 27:265-276. 

Ellefson, P.V., Kilgore, M.A., and Phillips, M.J. 2001. Monitoring compliance with BMPs: The experience of state 

forestry agencies. Journal of Forestry 99(1):11-17. 

Fisher, R.F. 1981. Impact of intensive silviculture on soil and water quality in a coastal lowland. 299-309 in Tropical 

Agricultural Hydrology. R. Lal and E.W. Russell (eds.). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2007. Sampling and Use of the Stream Condition Index (SCI) 

for Assessing Flowing Waters: A Primer. DEP/EA/002/07. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Environmental Assessment Section, Bureau of Laboratories. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009a. Nutrient and Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for the Middle 

St. Johns River Segments between the Inlet of Lake Harney (2964A) and the St. Johns River above the Wekiva River 

(2893C). http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/waters_list.tmdl_report?p_tmdl_id=37739. TMDL Report. Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009b. Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrient TMDL for the Alafia 

River above Hillsborough Bay - Tidal Segment (WBID 1621G). 

http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdldocs/37512_alatidal_WBID1621G_DO_Nuts.pdf. TMDL Report. Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009c. Proposed methods and approaches for developing 

numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s inland waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF). 2010. Silviculture best management practices 2009 implementation survey report. 

Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services – Division of Forestry. 40 pp. 

Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF). 2008. Silviculture best management practices. Tallahassee, FL: Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services – Division of Forestry. 

Fox, T.R., Allen, H.L., Albaugh, T.J., Rubilar, R., and Carlson, C.A. 2006. Forest fertilization in Southern Pine 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2371
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Plantations. Better Crops 90(3): 12-15. 

Fox, T.R., Allen, H.L., Albaugh, T.J., Rubilar, R., and Carlson, C.A. 2007. Tree nutrition and forest fertilization of pine 

plantations in the southern United States. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 31(1):5-11. 

Fromm, J.H., and Herrmann, R.B. 1996. Jones 5 fertilizer runoff monitoring-1992. Weyerhaeuser Research and 

Development Report, Project. No. 050-9010. New Bern, NC: Southern Environmental Field Station. 

Helsel. D.R., and Hirsch, R.M. 2002. Statistical methods in water resources. United States Geological Survey. 

Helvey, J.D., Kochenderfer, J.N., and Edwards, P.J. 1989. Effects of forest fertilization on selected ion concentrations in 

central Appalachian streams. 278-282 in Proceedings of the 7th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. Southern Illinois 

University, Carbondale, IL. G. Rink and C.A. Budelsky (eds.). General Technical Report NC-132. St. Paul, MN: United 

States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 

Herrmann, R.B., and White, W.M. 1996. Jones 5 fertilizer runoff monitoring-1983. Weyerhaeuser Research and 

Development Report, Project. No. 050-9010. New Bern, NC: Southern Environmental Field Station. 

Husak, A.L., Grado, S.C., Bullard, S.H., and Moffat, S.O. 2005. Silvicultural best management practice compliance 

monitoring programs in the southern United States. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 29(1):48-52. 

Ice, G.G. 1990. Dissolved oxygen and woody debris: Detecting sensitive forest streams. 333-346 in Air and Water Mass 

Transfer. S.C. Wilhelms, and J.S. Gulliver (eds.). New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. 

Ice, G. 2004. History of innovative best management practice development and its role in addressing water quality 

limited bodies. Journal of Environmental Engineering 130(6):684-689. 

Ice, G., and Binkley, D. 2003. Forest streamwater concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus. Journal of Forestry 

101(1):21-28. 

Ice, G., and Sugden, B. 2003. Summer dissolved oxygen concentrations in forested streams on Northern Louisiana. 

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 27:92-99. 

Joyce, K., Todd, R.L., Asmussen, L.E., and Leonard, R.A. 1985. Dissolved-oxygen, total organic-carbon and 

temperature relationships in southeastern United States Coastal Plain watersheds. Agricultural Water Management 

9:313-324. 

Kilgore, M., Ellefson, P., and Phillips, M. 2004. BMP compliance monitoring programs in the eastern United States. 

Water, Air and Soil Pollution: Focus 4(1):119-130. 

Lee, G.F. 2002. Developing nutrient criteria/TMDLs to manage excessive fertilization of waterbodies. In Proceedings of 

the National TMDL, Science and Policy 2002 Specialty Conference-CD. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment 

Federation. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2372
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Liechty, H.O., Nettles, J., Marion, D.A., and Turton, D.J. 1999. Stream chemistry after operational fertilizer application in 

the Ouachita Mountains. 265-270 in Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, 

Shreveport, LA. General Technical Report SRS-30. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 

Lockaby, B.G., and Walbridge, M.R. 1998. Biogeochemistry. 149-172 in Southern Forested Wetlands–Ecology and 

Management. M.G. Messina and W.H. Conner (eds.) Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers. 

McBroom, M.W., Beasley, R.S., Chang, M., and Ice, G.G. 2008. Water quality effects of clearcut harvesting and forest 

fertilization with best management practices. Journal of Environmental Quality 37:114-124. 

Mehring, A., Lowrance, R.R., Vellidis, G., Helton, A.M., Pringle, C.M., and Bosch, D.D. 2010. Is elevated DOC a result 

of low DO rather than its cause? Poster presented at the 2010 Land Grant and Sea Grant National Water Conference, 

Hilton Head, SC. 

Meyer, J.L. 1992. Seasonal patterns of water quality in blackwater rivers of the Coastal Plain, southeastern United 

States. 251-276 in Water Quality in North American River Systems, C.D. Becker and D.A. Neitzel (eds.). Columbus, 

OH: Battelle Press. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 1991. The New Alsea Watershed Study. Technical 

Bulletin No. 602. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 1999. Water quality effects of forest fertilization. 

Technical Bulletin No. 782. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc (NCASI). 2001a. Patterns and processes of variation in nitrogen 

and phosphorus concentrations in forested streams. Technical Bulletin No. 836. Research Triangle Park, NC: National 

Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2001b. Evaluation of nutrient criteria and response 

variables based upon the NCASI Long-Term Receiving Water Study experience. Technical Bulletin No. 833. Research 

Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2006a. The relationship between algal metrics and 

nutrients in the Long-Term Receiving Water Study rivers: Spatial and temporal variation. Technical Bulletin No. 926. 

Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2006b. Nutrient-algae patterns of periphyton and water 

column chlorophyll a in the Long-Term Receiving Water Study rivers: Variation with site, season, and year. Technical 

Bulletin No. 923. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2007a. Modeling and parameter estimation for 

transformations among various forms of nitrogen in pulp and paper mill effluents. Technical Bulletin No. 936. Research 

Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2373
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2007b. Nutrient diffusing substrate experiments in the 

Long-Term Receiving Water Study rivers and the Androscoggin River, Maine: Summary of findings. Technical Bulletin 

No. 929. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2009a. Summary of NCASI’s effluent nutrient 

biodegradation study results. Technical Bulletin No. 967. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and 

Stream Improvement, Inc. 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2009b. Compendium of forestry best management 

practices for controlling nonpoint source pollution in North America. Technical Bulletin No. 966. Research Triangle Park, 

NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Palumbo, J. 2010. Evaluation of periphyton-nutrient relationships in NCASI Long-Term Receiving Waters Study data. 

NCASI White Paper. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Pehlivanoglu-Mantas, E., and Sedlak, D.L. 2006. Wastewater-derived dissolved organic nitrogen: Analytical methods, 

characterization, and effects – A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36:261-285. 

Peterjohn, W.T., and Correll, D.L. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a 

riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466-1475. 

Priha, M. 1994. Bioavailability of pulp and paper mill effluent phosphorus. Water Science and Technology 29(5/6):93­

103. 

Priha, M., and Langi, A. 2000. The impact of nutrient loading of pulp and paper mill effluents on eutrophication of 

receiving waters. 165-171 in Proceedings of the 4th international conference on environmental impacts of the pulp and 

paper industry, June 12-15, 2000, Helsinki. Finnish Environmental Institute. 

Riekerk, H. 1989. Forest fertilizer and runoff-water quality. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida Proceedings 48:99­

102. 

Science Advisory Board (SAB). 2010. Science Advisory Board review of “Empirical Approaches for Numerical Nutrient 

Criteria Development” (draft, January 8, 2010). 

Seitzinger, S.P., Sanders, R.W., and Styles, R. 2002. Bioavailability of DON from natural and anthropogenic sources to 

estuarine plankton. Limnology and Oceanography 47:353-366. 

Shepard, J.P., Creighton, J., and Duzan, H. 2004. Forestry herbicides in the United States: An overview. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 32:1020-1027. 

Siry, J.P. 2002. Intensive timber management practices. 327-340 in Southern Forest Resource Assessment. D.N.
 

Wear, and J.G. Greis (eds.). GTR-SRS-53. Asheville, NC: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2374
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Southern Research Station. 

Smith, W.B., Miles, P.D., Perry, C.H., and Pugh, S.A. 2009. Forest resources of the United States, 2007. General 

Technical Report WO-78. Washington, DC: United Sates Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 336 pp. 

Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF). 2008. Implementation of forestry best management practices: A Southern 

Region report. Southern Group of State Foresters. 41 pp. 

Todd, M.J., Vellidis, G., Lowrance, R.R., and Pringle, C.M. 2009. High sediment oxygen demand within an instream 

swamp in southern Georgia: Implications for low dissolved oxygen levels in coastal blackwater streams. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association 45(6):1493-1507. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Consolidated assessment and listing methodology: 

Toward a compendium of best practices, 1st ed. http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Data quality assessment: Statistical methods for 

practitioner. EPA QA/G-9S. EPA/240/B-06/003. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008a. Nutrient criteria technical guidance manual: 

Wetlands. EPA-822-B-08-001. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2008b. Final TMDL for biochemical oxygen demand, 

dissolved oxygen, and nutrients in the Lake Okeechobee tributaries. 

http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdldocs/LakeO_Tribs_Nutrient_TMDL_final-v05-1.pdf. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009a. TMDL for nutrients in Fenholloway River, Econfina 

River Basin. http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdldocs/Final_Fenholloway_NutrientTMDL_021909.pdf. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009b. Empirical Approaches for Numerical Nutrient Criteria 

Development (draft). 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/5972E2A88464D45E85257591006649D0?OpenDocument (4/12/2010). 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

Utley, B.C., Villidis, G., Lowrance, R., and Smith, M.C. 2008. Factors affecting sediment oxygen demand dynamics in 

blackwater streams of Georgia’s Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44(3):742-753. 

Vowell, J.L., and Frydenborg, R.B. 2004. A biological assessment of best management practice effectiveness during 

intensive silviculture and forest chemical application. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 4:297-307. 

Walbridge, M.R., and Lockaby, B.G. 1994. Effects of forest management on biogeochemical functions in southern 

forested wetlands. Wetlands 14:10-17. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2375
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Wiegner, T.N., Seitzinger, S.P., Gilbert, P.M., and Bronk, D.A. 2006. Bioavailability of dissolved organic nitrogen and 

carbon from nine rivers in the eastern United States. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 43:277-287. 

Comment ID 1293-1.001.001 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the supplement report "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 602:
 

The New Alsea watershed study" (1991) for Florida waters from the comment report of the National Council for Air and
 

Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) relating to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water quality criteria
 

for lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. See original comment letter.
 

Included with this submittal are 13 NCASI technical bulletins. Due to docket upload file size limitations, this file (1 of 3)
 

contains two technical bulletins (highlighted). These reports are supplemental to the formal comments of NCASI and
 

those of FPPAEA on the proposed rule to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida waters.
 

The bulletins provided are as follows:
 

NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 602: The New Alsea watershed study. 1991.
 

Comment ID 1293-1.001.002 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the supplement report "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 782: 

Water quality effects of forest fertilization" (1999) for Florida waters from the comment report of the National Council for 

Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) relating to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water 

quality criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1294-1.001.001 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the supplement document "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 826: 

Selected pulp and paper industry experience with the control of nutrients in biologically treated effluents" (2001) for 

Florida waters from the comment report of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) relating 

to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water quality criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the State of 

Florida. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2376
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1294-1.001.002 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the supplement document "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 833: 

Evaluation of nutrient criteria and response variables based upon the NCASI Long-Term Receiving Water Study 

experience" (2001) for Florida waters from the comment report of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, 

Inc. (NCASI) relating to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water quality criteria for lakes and flowing 

waters in the State of Florida. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1295-1.001.002 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the supplement document "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 936: 

Modeling and parameter estimation for transformations among various forms of nitrogen in pulp and paper mill 

effluents" (2007) for Florida waters from the comment report of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, 

Inc. (NCASI) relating to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water quality criteria for lakes and flowing 

waters in the State of Florida. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1295-1.001.003 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the supplement document "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 937: 

Synthesis of NCASI information on the management of nutrients for biological treatment of pulp and paper mill 

wastewaters" (2007) for Florida waters from the comment report of the National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) relating to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water quality criteria for 

lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1295-1.001.004 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2377
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the supplement document "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 944: 

Minimization of nutrients in biologically treated effluents from pulp and paper mills" (2007) for Florida waters from the 

comment report of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) relating to EPA's January 26, 

2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water quality criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 1295-1.001.005 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the supplement document "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 966: 

Compendium of forestry best management practices for controlling nonpoint source pollution in North America" (2009) 

for Florida waters from the comment report of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) 

relating to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of numeric nutrient water quality criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the 

State of Florida. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1295-1.001.006 

Author Name: Wiegand P. 

Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the supplement document "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 967: 

Summary of NCASI's effluent nutrient biodegradation study results" (2009) for Florida waters from the comment report 

of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) relating to EPA's January 26, 2010 proposal of 

numeric nutrient water quality criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1304-1.001.066 

Author Name: Stewart J. 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the following documents: 1. Florida Pulp 

and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. (pages 25-27), 2. Summary of FPAEA Concerns (page 28), 3. 

Contributors to FPPAEA's Comments (pages 29-34), and 4. Adherence to Federal Requirements for Developing WQS 

(pages 35-36). See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2378
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1304-3.001.001 

Author Name: Stewart J.
 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of HYDROQUAL COMMENTS ON EPA’s 

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA’S LAKES AND FLOWING WATERS (EPA-HQ-OW2009-0596). See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1304-4.001.001 

Author Name: Stewart J.
 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and springs in the document 

Technical Comments on EPA Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria from Entrix. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1304-5.001.001 

Author Name: Stewart J.
 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 

ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL OF NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS IN PULP AND PAPER WASTEWATER 

prepared by AWARE Environmental Inc. and AquAeTer Inc.. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1304-6.001.001 

Author Name: Stewart J.
 

Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for lakes and flowing waters in the 

memorandum titled Proposed Water Quality Standards for Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters from Law Offices of 

Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1346-1.001.018 

Author Name: Still D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2379
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site link. See 

http://www.dos.state.fl.us/grants/redi/designation.cfm for more information about the cost of meeting the criteria. 

2. The cost of attainment in the SRWMD will fall on political jurisdictions that are rural areas of critical economic concern 

(see http://www.dos.state.fl.us/grants/redi/designation.cfm). 

Comment ID 1346-1.001.019 

Author Name: Still D. 

Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment 1. 40B-2.301 Conditions for 

Issuance of Permits and Attachment 2. 62-40.473 Minimum Flows and Levels. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.023 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the table on page 11 of the PDF regarding information about 

the cost to implement treatment technologies to meet the criteria of the rulemaking from Polk County. See original 

comment letter. 

The first row of the following table depicts the number of Polk County MS4 structures potentially in need of retrofit today 

(under existing rules) and their associated costs. The second row shows the number and cost of retrofits expected from 

the additional impairments the proposed rule would generate. The enhanced and conventional treatment costs 

presented in the table are estimates based upon numerous local municipal stormwater retrofit projects. 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.032 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

Literature Cited 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2380
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Anonymous authors (multiple). 2009. External Peer Review of EPA's Proposed Methods and Approaches for 

Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Waters. Peer Review Comments: Draft Final. Prepared by 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Bonvechio, K.L. and Bonvechio, T.F. 2006. Relationship between Habitat and Sport Fish Population over a 20-Year 

Period at West Lake Tohopekaliga, Florida. North American Journal ofFisheries Management.26 (124-133) 

Environmental Research and Design, Inc. (ERD) Lake Hancock Water and Nutrient Budget and Water Quality 

Improvement Project. Final Report. Prepared by Harper, H.H., Herr, J.L, and Baker, D.M.l999 

Environmental Research and Design, Inc. (ERD) Harper H.H. and Baker D.M. 2007. Evaluation of Current Stormwater 

Design Criteria within the State of Florida. Prepared by Harper, H.B. and Baker, D.M.1999 

Federal Register. Jan 26, 2010. Part III Environmental Protection Agency. 40 CFR Part 131. Water Quality Standards 

for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule. 

Florida LAKEWATCH. University of Florida. Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2007. Fish Communities 

and Trophic State in Florida Lakes: Information Circular 110. 

Florida Stormwater Association. (FSA) 2010.General Comments on EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria.
 

Griffith, G.E., Canfield, D.E., Horsburgh, C.A. Jr., and Omerinik, J.M. 1997. Lake Regions of Florida. EPA Research and
 

Development. Western Ecology Division.
 

Janicki Environmental, Inc. (Janicki Env) 1999. Atmospheric Contributions to Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loadings in 

Tampa Bay: Intensive Wet and Dry Deposition Data Collection and Analyses August 1996-July 1998. Prepared by 

Janicki, AJ. and Pribble, J.R. 

McPherson, B.F., Miller, R.L., Haag, K.B., and Bradner, A. 2000. Water Quality in Southern Florida 1996-1998: U.S.
 

Geological Survey Circular 1207.
 

Madrid Engineering Group, Inc. (Madrid) 2005. Lake Hancock Dredging Feasibility Study. Final Report. 


PBS&J. 2008. Assessment of Water Quality Responses to Sediment Removal in Lake Hancock. Final Report.
 

Thomas, Paul (FWC). 2010. Recreational value of Polk County Lakes. Email correspondence
 

Tomasko, Dave (PBS&J). 20 I O. Alkalinity and specific conductance relationships in WHCL. Email correspondence.
 

Whitmore, TJ., and Brenner. M. 2002. Paleolimnological Characterization of Predisturbance Water Quality Conditions in
 

EPA-Defined Florida Lake Regions. Final Report.
 

Comment ID 1352-1.001.173 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2381
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Herr M. 

Organization: Polk County 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 


REFERENCES 


Brown M.T., K. Chinners Reiss, M.J. Cohen, J.M. Evans, P.W. Inglett, K. Sharma Inglett, K. Ramesh, Reddy, T.K.
 

Fraze,
 

C.A. Jacoby, E.J. Phlips, R.L. Knight, S.K. Notestein, R.G. Hamann, and K.A. McKee. 2008. Summary and Synthesis of 

the Available Literature on the Effects of Nutrients on Spring Organisms and Systems. University of Florida. Gainesville, 

Florida. 

Canfield, J., Horsburgh, C., Omernik, J., & Azevedo, S. (2007). Lake Regions of Florida. Map Prepared by the USEPA. 

Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm 

Carlson, R. (1977). A Trophic State Index for Lakes. 22, 361-369. 

Carlson, R., & Simpson, J. (1996). A Coordinator's Guide to Volunteer Lake Monitoring Methods. North American Lake 

Management Society. 

Cowell, B.C. and C.J. Dawes. 2004. Growth and nitrate-nitrogen uptake by the cyanobacterium Lyngbya wollei. J. 

Aquatic Plant Management. 42: 69-71. 

DB Environmental, Inc. 2009. Characteristics of Macroinvertebrate Populations in South Florida Canals. 

DB Environmental, Inc. and Azurea, Inc. 2007. Relationship Between Water Column Nutrients and Macroinvertebrate 

Assemblages in the Reedy Creek Drainage Basin, Central Florida. Prepared for Everglades Agricultural Area 

Environmental Protection District. Clewiston, FL. 

Dodds, W. K. and E. B. Welch. 2000. Establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society. 19:186-196. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2001. An investigation of canals in southwest Florida: 

Relationships between biological health, water quality, and habitat. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009a. DRAFT Technical Support Document: Development of 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Lakes and Streams. Standards and Assessments Section. Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009b. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Review of SPARROW: How useful is it for the purposes of supporting water quality standards development? Located in 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2382
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

EPA's docket Id No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010a. Personal communication with Charles Kovach. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (2010b). Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of 

Lakes. Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010c. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of 

Streams and Springs/Clear Streams. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010d. Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection 

Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters published January 26, 2010. 

February 10, 2010. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Lakewatch. (2004). A Beginner's Guide to Water Management - Color, January 2004. University of Florida, 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Gainesville, Florida: Florida Lakewatch. Department of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences. 

Florida Lakewatch (2007). Fish Communities and Trophic State in Florida Lakes, April 2007 [Report] : Information 

Circular #110 / Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; University of Florida. - Gainesville, Florida : Florida 

Lakewatch. Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2007. 

Fore, L.S. R. Frydenborg, D. Miller, T. Frick, D. Whiting, J. Espy, and L. Wolfe. 2007. Development and testing of 

biomonitoring tools for macroinvertebrates in Florida streams. Report submitted to the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 2600 Blair Stone Road. Tallahassee, Florida. 32399. 

Gao, X. 2008. Nutrient TMDLs for the Wekiva River (WBIDs 2956, 2956A, and 2956C) and Rock Springs Run (WBID 

2967). Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Griffith, G., Canfield, J. D., Horsburgh, C., Omernik, J., & Azevedo, S. (1997). Lake Regions of Florida. Report to the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Helsel, D.R. and R.M. Hirsh. 2002. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. U.S. Geological Survey. Available at: 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3/ 

Hoos, A.B., and G. McMahon. 2009. Spatial analysis of instream nitrogen loads and factors controlling nitrogen delivery 

to streams in the southeastern United States using spatially referenced regression on watershed attributes 

(SPARROW) and regional classification frameworks. Hydrol. Processes. Published online in Wiley InterScience. DOI: 

10.1002/hyp.7323. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 

Hoos, A.B., S.E. Terziotti, G. McMahon, K. Savvas, K.C. Tighe, and R. Alkons-Wolinksy. 2008. Data to support 

statistical modeling of instream nutrient load based on watershed attributes, southeastern United States, 2002. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1163. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2383
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Huber, W. C., Bresonik, P. L., Heaney, J. P., Dickinson, R. E., Preston, S. D., Dwornik, D. S., et al. (1982). A 

Classification of Lakes. University of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, Gainesville. 

Katz, B.G., H.D. Hornsby, J.F. Bohlke and M.F. Mokray. 1999. Sources and chronology of nitrate contamination in 

spring water, Suwannee River Basin, Florida. U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4252. 

Reston, VA. Reconstruct Environmental Variables from Fossil Assemblages by Weighted Averaging and to Derive 

Sample-Specific Errors of Prediction. Journal of Paleolimnology, 10, 147-152. 

Mattson, R.A., E.F. Lowe, C.L. Lippincott, D. Jian, and L. Battoe. 2006. Wekiva River and Rock Springs Run Pollutant 

Load Reduction Goals. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida. 

McMahon, G., L. Tervelt, and W. Donehoo. 2007. Methods for estimating annual wastewater nutrient loads in the 

southeastern United State. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1040. 

Nolan, J.V., J.W. Brakebill, R.B. Alexander, and G.E. Schwarz. 2002. ERF1_2 - Enhanced River Reach Fie 2.0. USGS 

Open-File Report 02-40. 

Oregon State University, PRISM Group. 2007. 800m normals (1971-2000). Corvallis, Oregon, Oregon State University.

 R 

Rosemond, A.D., H. S. Weyers, M. J. Paul, J.L. Greenwood and D.S. Leigh. 2001. Benthic algal biomass in the Etowah 

basin and implications to establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water Resources 

Conference, March 26-27, 2001, at the University of Georgia. 

Ruddy, B.C., D.L. Lorenz, and D.K. Mueller. 2006. County-level estimates of nutrient inputs to the land surface of the 

conterminous United States, 1982-2001. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5012. 

Salas, H. J., & Martino, P. (1991). A Simplifed Phosphorus Trophic State Model for Warm-Water Tropical Lakes . Water 

Research , 25, 341-350. 

Schwarz, G.E., A.B. Hoos, R.B. Alexander, and R.A. Smith. 2006. The SPARROW surface water-quality model: Theory, 

application, and user documentation. Book 6, Chapter B3, Techniques and Methods Report, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Scott, T.M., G.H. Means, R.P. Meegan, R.C. Means, S.B. Upchurch, R.E. Copeland, J. Jones, T. Roberts, and A. Willet. 

2004. Springs of Florida. Bulletin No. 66. Florida Geological Survey. Tallahassee, FL. 677 pp. 

South Florida Water Management District. 1997. Documentation for the South Florida Water Management Model. 

Hydrologic Systems Modeling Division, Planning Department. West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Stevenson, R.J., A. Pinowska, A. Albertin, and J.O. Sickman. 2007. Ecological condition of algae and nutrients in 

Florida springs: The Synthesis Report. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, 

FL. 58 pp. 

Suplee, Michael W., Arun Varghese, and Joshua Cleland. 2007. Developing Nutrient Criteria for Streams: An 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2384
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Evaluation of the Frequency Distribution Method. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 43:453-472. 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program and Janicki Environmental. 2009. Draft Final 2009 Reasonable Assurance Addendum: 

Allocation & Assessment Report. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and 

Streams. EPA-822-B-00-002. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Dissolved 

Oxygen and Nutrient in the Everglades. Prepared by U.S. EPA Region 4. Atlanta, GA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009). Florida's Inland Waters, Chapter 1. US Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 131 (EPA-HQOW-2009-0596; FRL-XXXX-X) (RIN 2040-AF11) Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing 

Waters. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA's Proposed Rule for 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh Waters. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2009. The Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South 

Carolina, HA 730-G. Washington, D.C. http://capp.water.usgs.gov/gwa/ch_g/index.html 

Valigura, R. A., R. B. Alexander, M.S. Castro, T.P. Meyers, H.W. Paerl, P.E. Stacey, and R.E. Turner (Eds.). 2000. 

Nitrogen Loading in Coastal Water Bodies. An Atmospheric Perspective. Coastal and Estuaries Series, No. 57. 

American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 

Van Zee, R., A.M. Wasantha Lal and M. Belnap. Undated. Simulation of Canal Flow in the South Florida Regional 

Simulation Model. South Florida Water Management District. West Palm Beach, FL. 

Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K.W. Cummings J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. 

Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences. 37:130-137. 

Vollenweider R.A. Input-Output Models with Special Reference to the Phosphorus Loading Concept in Limnology 

[Journal] // Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Hydrologie. - 1975. - Vol. 37. -pp. 53-84. 

Wetland Solutions, Inc. 2004. 50-Year Retrospective Study of the Ecology of Silver Springs, Floirda. Prepared for St. 

Johns River Water Management District. Palatka, FL. 

Whitmore, T., & Brenner, M. (2002). Paleologic Characterization of Pre-Disturbance Water Quality Conditions in EPA 

Defined Florida Lake Regions. University of Florida, Department Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

Wolock, D.M., T.C. Winter, and G. McMahon. 2004. Delineation and evaluation of hydrologic-landscape regions in the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2385
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

United States using geographic information system tools and multivariate statistical analysis. Environmental 

Management 34(Supplement 1): S71-S88. 

Comment ID 1355-2.001.011 

Author Name: Barker V. 

Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

REFERENCES 

Brown M.T., K. Chinners Reiss, M.J. Cohen, J.M. Evans, P.W. Inglett, K. Sharma Inglett, K. Ramesh, Reddy, T.K. 

Fraze, C.A. Jacoby, E.J. Phlips, R.L. Knight, S.K. Notestein, R.G. Hamann, and K.A. McKee. 2008. Summary and 

Synthesis of the Available Literature on the Effects of Nutrients on Spring Organisms and Systems. University of 

Florida. Gainesville, Florida. 

Cowell, B.C. and C.J. Dawes. 2004. Growth and nitrate-nitrogen uptake by the cyanobacterium Lyngbya wollei. J. 

Aquatic Plant Management. 42: 69-71. DB Environmental, Inc. 2009. Characteristics of Macroinvertebrate Populations 

in South Florida Canals. 

DB Environmental, Inc. and Azurea, Inc. 2007. Relationship Between Water Column Nutrients and Macroinvertebrate 

Assemblages in the Reedy Creek Drainage Basin, Central Florida. Prepared for Everglades Agricultural Area 

Environmental Protection District. Clewiston, FL. 

DB Environmental, Inc. 2009. Characteristics of Macroinvertebrate Populations in South Florida Canals. 

Dodds, W. K. and E. B. Welch. 2000. Establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society. 19:186-196. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Review 

of SPARROW: How useful is it for the purposes of supporting water quality standards development? Located in EPA's 

docket Id No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2001. An investigation of canals in southwest Florida: 

Relationships between biological health, water quality, and habitat. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010a. Personal communication with Charles Kovach. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010b. Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection 

Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters published January 26, 2010. 

February 10, 2010. Tallahassee, FL. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2386
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010c. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of 

Streams and Springs/Clear Streams. Tallahassee, FL. 

Fore, L.S. R. Frydenborg, D. Miller, T. Frick, D. Whiting, J. Espy, and L. Wolfe. 2007. Development and testing of 

biomonitoring tools for macroinvertebrates in Florida streams. Report submitted to the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 2600 Blair Stone Road. Tallahassee, Florida. 32399. 

Gao, X. 2008. Nutrient TMDLs for the Wekiva River (WBIDs 2956, 2956A, and 2956C) and Rock Springs Run (WBID 

2967). Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Helsel, D.R. and R.M. Hirsh. 2002. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. U.S. Geological Survey. Available at: 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3/60 

Hoos, A.B., and G. McMahon. 2009. Spatial analysis of instream nitrogen loads and factors controlling nitrogen delivery 

to streams in the southeastern United States using spatially referenced regression on watershed attributes 

(SPARROW) and regional classification frameworks. Hydrol. Processes. Published online in Wiley InterScience. DOI: 

10.1002/hyp.7323. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 

Hoos, A.B., S.E. Terziotti, G. McMahon, K. Savvas, K.C. Tighe, and R. Alkons-Wolinksy. 2008. Data to support 

statistical modeling of instream nutrient load based on watershed attributes, southeastern United States, 2002. U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1163. 

Katz, B.G., H.D. Hornsby, J.F. Bohlke and M.F. Mokray. 1999. Sources and chronology of nitrate contamination in 

spring water, Suwannee River Basin, Florida. U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4252. 

Reston, VA. 

Mattson, R.A., E.F. Lowe, C.L. Lippincott, D. Jian, and L. Battoe. 2006. Wekiva River and Rock Springs Run Pollutant 

Load Reduction Goals. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida. 

McMahon, G., L. Tervelt, and W. Donehoo. 2007. Methods for estimating annual wastewater nutrient loads in the 

southeastern United State. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1040. 

Nolan, J.V., J.W. Brakebill, R.B. Alexander, and G.E. Schwarz. 2002. ERF1_2 - Enhanced River Reach Fie 2.0. USGS 

Open-File Report 02-40. 

Oregon State University, PRISM Group. 2007. 800m normals (1971-2000). Corvallis, Oregon, Oregon State University. 

Rosemond, A.D., H. S. Weyers, M. J. Paul, J.L. Greenwood and D.S. Leigh. 2001. Benthic algal biomass in the Etowah 

basin and implications to establishing nutrient criteria in streams. Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water Resources 

Conference, March 26-27, 2001, at the University of Georgia. 

Ruddy, B.C., D.L. Lorenz, and D.K. Mueller. 2006. County-level estimates of nutrient inputs to the land surface of the 

conterminous United States, 1982-2001. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5012. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2387
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Salas, H. J. and P. Martino. 1991. A simplified phosphorus trophic state model for warm water lakes. Water Resources.
 

25:341-350.
 

Schwarz, G.E., A.B. Hoos, R.B. Alexander, and R.A. Smith. 2006. The SPARROW surface water quality model: Theory,
 

application, and user documentation. Book 6, Chapter B3, Techniques and Methods Report, U.S. Geological Survey.
 

Scott, T.M., G.H. Means, R.P. Meegan, R.C. Means, S.B. Upchurch, R.E. Copeland, J. Jones, T.
 

Roberts, and A. Willet. 2004. Springs of Florida. Bulletin No. 66. Florida Geological Survey. Tallahassee, FL. 677 pp.61
 

South Florida Water Management District. 1997. Documentation for the South Florida Water Management Model.
 

Hydrologic Systems Modeling Division, Planning Department. West Palm Beach, Florida.
 

Stevenson, R.J., A. Pinowska, A. Albertin, and J.O. Sickman. 2007. Ecological condition of algae and nutrients in
 

Florida springs: The Synthesis Report. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee,
 

FL. 58 pp.
 

Suplee, Michael W., Arun Varghese, and Joshua Cleland. 2007. Developing Nutrient Criteria for Streams: An
 

Evaluation of the Frequency Distribution Method. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 43:453-472.
 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program and Janicki Environmental. 2009. Draft Final 2009 Reasonable Assurance Addendum:
 

Allocation & Assessment Report. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a. Nutrient Criteria Technical 

Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. EPA-822-B-00-002. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Dissolved 

Oxygen and Nutrient in the Everglades. Prepared by U.S. EPA Region 4. Atlanta, GA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 131 (EPA-HQOW-2009-0596; FRL-XXXX-X) (RIN 2040-AF11) Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing 

Waters. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA's Proposed Rule for 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh Waters. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. The Ground Water Atlas of the United States: Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South 

Carolina, HA 730-G. Washington, D.C. 

http://capp.water.usgs.gov/gwa/ch_g/index.html 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA's Proposed Rule for 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh Waters. 

Van Zee, R., A.M. Wasantha Lal and M. Belnap. Undated. Simulation of Canal Flow in the South Florida Regional 

Simulation Model. South Florida Water Management District. West Palm Beach, FL. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2388
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K.W. Cummings J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. 

Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences. 37:130-137. 

Wetland Solutions, Inc. 2004. 50-Year Retrospective Study of the Ecology of Silver Springs, Floirda. Prepared for St. 

Johns River Water Management District. Palatka, FL. 62 

Wolock, D.M., T.C. Winter, and G. McMahon. 2004. Delineation and evaluation of hydrologiclandscape regions in the 

United States using geographic information system tools and multivariate statistical analysis. Environmental 

Management 34(Supplement 1): S71-S88. 

Comment ID 1361-1.001.012 

Author Name: * * 

Organization: North Carolina Division of Water Quality 

A link is hereby provided to a comprehensive fiscal analysis completed by NC water quality staff on the nutrient 

management strategy with estimated costs of approximately $1 billion for one reservoir: 

http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2e05ae32-55b7- 4f9f-b095-244bf6f6720b&groupId=38364 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a website link. See 

http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2e05ae32-55b7- 4f9f-b095-244bf6f6720b&groupId=38364 for 

more information on a comprehensive fiscal analysis completed by NC water quality staff on the nutrient management 

strategy with estimated costs of approximately $1 billion for one reservoir. 

Comment ID 1368-2.001.001 

Author Name: Waters D. 

Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site link. See 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm for more information about the Department’s preliminary 

assessment comparing EPA's proposed criteria for streams, lakes, and canals to the data available in the Department's 

Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) database. 

As mentioned in a recent email, the Department has conducted a preliminary assessment comparing EPA's proposed 

criteria for streams, lakes, and canals to the data available in the Department's Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) database. 

Attached is an updated version of the Excel workbook that more fully explains the methodology behind the assessment. 

The results will also be posted to the Department's website at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm in the near future. In addition to the assessment 

information, this Excel workbook includes important information about how the assessments were performed and about 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2389
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

assumptions or decisions that were made in order to carry out the assessments due to ambiguity in the proposal. It is 

important that users review the information provided to better understand the results. Please note that this additional 

information is provided in 4 different tabs within the Excel workbook: Notes and Terms, Column Header descriptions, 

Hints on finding your waterbody, and Assessment Summary. Additionally, it should be understood that these 

assessments are preliminary and have no regulatory implications. If you have any questions about the analysis, please 

contact Julie Espy at (850) 245-8416. 

Comment ID 1368-3.001.001 

Author Name: Waters D. 

Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a spreadsheet of assessment data by WBID 

from City of Miami Department of Public Works. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.064 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

References 

Bailey, N. 2008. TMDL Report. Nutrient and Dissolved Oxygen TMDL for the Little Wekiva Canal, WBID 3004. Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection. 

Gao, X. 2006. TMDL Report. Nutrient and Unionized Ammonia TMDLs for Lake Jesup, WBIDs 2981 and 2981A. Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection. 

Gao, X. 2008. TMDL Report. Nutrient TMDLs for the Wekiva River (WBIDs 2956, 2956A, and 2956C) and Rock Springs 

Run (WBID 2967). Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Gao, X. 2008. TMDL Report. Nutrient TMDLs for Spring Lake (WBID 2987A), Lake Florida (WBID 2998A), Lake Orienta 

(WBID 2998C), Lake Adalaide (WBID 2998E), Lake Lawne (WBID3004C), Silver Lake (3004D), and Bay Lake (WBID 

3004G) in the Wekiva Study Area. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Gao, X. 2009. Final TMDL Report. Nutrient and DO TMDLs for the Six Middle St. Johns River Segments between the 

inlet of Lake Harney (WBID 2964A) and St. Johns river above Wekiva River (WBID 2893C). Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2390
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.065 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Attachment 1 which is a table of OCU 

Wastewater and Reclaimed Water Projects Located in the Wekiva Study Area. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1370-1.001.072 

Author Name: Hanson R. 

Organization: Orange County Utilities 

CDM reviewed available discharge monitoring reports obtained from FDEP and graphed the nutrient concentrations 

from the wetland outfall into Lake Marden. CDM also consulted the Florida Storage and Retrieval (STORET) database 

and the Orange County Water Atlas for available ambient water quality monitoring data for Lake Marden to determine if 

it is a colored, clear alkaline or clear acidic lake as per USEPA's proposed categories for lakes. Ambient water quality 

monitoring data were not available for Lake Marden from these sources. However, OCU provided some limited ambient 

water quality data for the lake which indicates that it is a clear, alkaline lake. Effluent concentrations of TP and TN from 

the wetland are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. For comparison purposes, CDM showed the corresponding 

nutrient criteria for clear, alkaline lakes. Compared to USEPA's proposed criteria for clear, alkaline lakes, wetland 

effluent to Lake Marden consistently exceeds the TP criterion whereas the TN criterion is exceeded 53 percent of the 

time. 

Original comment letter contains Figure 1, a map of the service area, Figure 2, Northwest WRF Wetland Effluent TP 

Concentration, and Figure 3, Northwest WRF Wetland Effluent TN Concentration. See original comment letter. 

As the Lake Cora Lee wetland treatment system was recently permitted in December 2009, there are no available 

discharge nutrient concentration data for this system. 

Eastern WRF 

The OCU Eastern WRF is located in east Orange County and its service area is shown in Figure 4. The WRF is an 

existing 19 MGD AADF expanding to 24 MGD AADF permitted capacity advanced wastewater treatment facility with 

Class I reliabilty. The WRF's reuse system has a capacity of 24.1 MGD consisting of land application systems which 

include: a 6.2 MGD AADF permitted capacity wetland system with discharge to an unnamed tributary of the Big 

Econlockhatchee (Econ) River; an existing 2.5 MGD AADF permitted capacity RIB system; an existing 13.0 MGD AADF 

permitted capacity industrial reuse system which returns cooling water to the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center (CESC); 

and a 2.4 MGD AADF permitted capacity slow-rate public access consisting of a 3 MG reclaimed water storage tank 

and irrigation within an approved reuse service area. The Big Econ River is a Class III fresh water and an outstanding 

Florida water body (OFW). Reclaimed water discharge limits from the wetland to the Big Econ River are summarized 

below in Table 4. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2391
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional data and information for rivers and reservoirs. See Table 4, Eastern WRF 

Reclaimed Water Discharge Limits to Big Econ River. See original comment letter. 

CDM reviewed available discharge monitoring reports obtained from FDEP and graphed the nutrient concentrations 

from the wetland outfall into the Big Econ River tributary. CDM also consulted the STORET database for available 

ambient water quality monitoring data for the Big Econ River just downstream of the wetland discharge point (station 

BEI). Effluent concentrations of TP and TN from the wetland are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. For 

comparison purposes, the corresponding nutrient criteria for flowing waters are also shown. Wetland effluent to the Big 

Econ tributary exceeds the UESPA proposed criteria 65 and 27 percent of the time for TP and TN, respectively. Of 

note, the ambient nutrient concentrations in the Big Econ River just downstream of the wetland discharge point exceed 

the UESPA proposed criteria 57 and 33 percent of the time for TP and TN, respectively. 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information for rivers. See Figures 5 and 6, effluent concentrations of 

TP and TN from the wetland. See original comment letter. 

Identification of TMDLs and BMAPs 

CDM identified TMDLs, BMAPs and verified impaired water bodies located within or downstream of the service areas 

for the Northwest and Eastern WRFs. The following paragraphs describe these for the two WRFs with surface water 

discharges. 

Northwest WRF 

As mentioned previously, a wetlands application system at the Northwest WRF discharges to Lake Marden and Lake 

Cora Lee. While Lake Marden is not currently listed as an impaired water body, the lake and a large portion of the 

service area for the Northwest WRF are located within the Wekiva Basin BMAP Planning Area, shown on Figure 7. 

Nutrient TMDLs have been adopted for several water body identification units (WBIDs) within the Northwest WRF 

service area. The boundaries of these WBIDs are also shown in Figure 7 and include the Wekiva River (WBID 2956), 

the Little Wekiva Canal (WBID 3004) and Lake Lawne (WBID 3004C). Dissolved oxygen (DO) and fecal coliform 

TMDLs have also been adopted for the Little Wekiva Canal (WBID 3004) and the Little Wekiva River (WBID 2987). 

While these WBIDs are not directly affected by the Northwest WRF, they are still located within the facility's service area 

and will require a BMAP. Additionally, there are several WBIDs within the Wekiva BMAP Planning Area with an adopted 

nutrient TMDL, which are not located within the Northwest WRF service area; however they are located within the 

County's jurisdiction. These WBIDs are also shown on Figure 7 and include the Wekiva River (WBID 2956A), Wekiva 

Spring (WBID 2956C), Spring Lake (2987A), Bay Lake (3004G), and Silver Lake (3004D). 

The Wekiva Basin BMAP is currently being developed by the FDEP to address nutrient TMDLs for Wekiva Spring, the 

Wekiva River, Rock Springs, Rock Springs Run, Blackwater Creek, Little Wekiva River, and Little Wekiva Canal. As 

shown on Figure 7, the Wekiva BMAP planning area includes the Wekiva surface watershed and springshed. The 

Northwest WRF and Lake Marden are both located within both the Wekiva surface watershed and springshed. 

The following paragraphs summarize each water body's nutrient related impairments and target parameter 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2392
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

concentrations established in the adopted TMDL. Additionally, the following WBIDs are within the Northwest WRF's 

service area and are currently identified on the State's Verified List of impaired water bodies for nutrients based on their 

trophic state index (TSI): Lake Gandy (WBID 3004J); Lake Shadow (3011B); and Lake Hiawassee (3002J). Lake Butler 

(3170Q) is also included on the State's Verified List based on its historic TSI values. 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information. See Figure 7, the Wekiva BMAP planning area. See 

original comment letter. 

Nutrient TMDL for Wekiva Spring and Wekiva River 

The Wekiva Spring and Wekiva River were verified as impaired for nutrients (TP and nitrate) based on evidence of 

imbalance in aquatic flora provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and were added to 

the State's Verified List of impaired waters for the Middle St. Johns River Basin that was adopted by Secretarial Order 

on January 3, 2007. 

The 2008 FDEP report for nutrient TMDLs for the Wekiva River (WBIDs 2956, 2956A, and 2956C) and Rock Springs 

Run (WBID 2967) establishes target nitrate concentration for the WBIDs based on several studies, including: laboratory 

and nutrient bioassays; the relationship between periphyton biomass and cell density and nitrate concentrations; and 

the relationship between ecological efficiency and nitrate concentration in the Wekiva River compared to reference 

streams. The TP target for the Wekiva River was determined based on an attached algal community study in the 

streams and an ecosystem metabolism study. Based on the results of these analyses, target concentrations of 0.286 

mg/L for nitrate and 0.065 mg/L for TP were proposed by FDEP. 

The TMDL for the Wekiva River and other related WBIDs are expressed in terms of percent reduction of TN and TP and 

represent the maximum long-term annual average TN and TP loadings the Wekiva River can assimilate and still 

maintain a balanced aquatic flora and fauna. The required reductions from the TMDL for the Wekiva River and Wekiva 

Spring are shown below in Table 5. 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information. See Table 5, Wekiva River and Wekiva Spring TMDL 

Nutrient Load Reductions. See original comment letter. 

Nutrient TMDL for Lake Lawne, Spring Lake, Silver Lake, and Bay Lake 

In 2008, FDEP prepared a TMDL report for nutrient TMDLs for Spring Lake (WBID 2987A), Lake Florida (WBID 2998A), 

Lake Orienta (WBID 2998C), Lake Adalaide (WBID 2998E), Lake Lawne (WBID3004C), Silver Lake (3004D) and Bay 

Lake (WBID 3004G) in the Wekiva Study Area. The report presented the TMDL for nutrients for Lake Lawne, Spring 

Lake, Silver Lake, and Bay Lake as well as other lakes outside of the study area in Seminole County. These lakes were 

verified as impaired for nutrients due to elevated annual average TSI values and were included on the Verified List of 

impaired waters for the Middle St. Johns River Basin that was adopted by Secretarial Order on January 3, 2007. The 

lakes were verified as impaired for nutrients based on the finding that during the verified period (January 1, 1996 

through June 30, 2003), one or more annual average TSI values exceeded the assessment threshold of 60 units. 

The TMDL established target TSIs at 5 units above the background TSIs. Background TSIs were estimated based on 

modeling for the TMDL. TN and TP target loadings that would result in achieving the target TSIs were established. The 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2393
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

water quality targets established for each lake are shown in Table 6. 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information. See Table 6, Target In-Lake TN, TP, and Chlorophyll-a 

Concentrations and TSIs. See original comment letter. 

The TMDLs for the lakes are expressed in terms of pounds per year (lbs/year) and percent reduction of TN and TP, and 

represent the maximum long-term annual average TN and TP loadings each lake can assimilate and still maintain a 

balanced aquatic flora and fauna. Table 7 shows the existing TN and TP loadings, the TMDL, and percent load 

reduction to achieve TSI targets for Lake Lawne, Spring Lake, Silver Lake, and Bay Lake. 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information. See Table 7, Lake Nutrient Loadings, TMDLs and 

Percent Load Reduction Targets. See original comment letter. 

Nutrient and DO TMDL for the Little Wekiva Canal (WBID 3004) 

A TMDL for TN and 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) was developed for the Little Wekiva Canal, which 

collectively have caused nutrient and low dissolved oxygen (DO) impairments in the canal (Bailey, 2008). The canal 

was verified as impaired for DO due to measured values below the 5 mg/L State water quality criterion. The canal was 

also verified as impaired for nutrients based on the results of chlorophyll-a sampling and analysis. The Little Wekiva 

Canal was included on the Verified List of impaired waters for the Middle St. Johns Basin that was adopted by 

Secretarial Order on May 27, 2004. 

Based on calculations done by FDEP, water quality targets of 1.02 mg/L for TN and 2.0 mg/L for BOD were proposed. 

A target TP concentration was not set by FDEP because observed TP concentrations are already approximately equal 

to the calculated target concentration. 

The TMDLs for the canal are expressed in terms of both pounds per year (lbs/year) and percent reduction of TN and 

BOD, and represent the maximum long-term annual average TN and BOD loading that will bring the current DO levels 

to the standard of 5 mg/L. Table 8 shows the existing TN and BOD loadings, required TMDLs, and percent load 

reductions for the Little Wekiva Canal. 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information. See Table 8, Little Wekiva Canal Pollutant Loadings, 

TMDLs and Percent Load Reduction Targets. See original comment letter. 

Eastern WRF 

A wetlands application system at the Eastern WRF discharges to an unnamed tributary of the Big Econ River, located 

within the Econlockhatchee Planning Unit, shown on Figure 8. While no nutrient impairments exist for the Big Econ 

River, the river discharges into Lake Harney (WBID 2964A) which is currently impaired for nutrients and DO. Lake 

Georgia (WBID 3009E), while not impacted by the Eastern WRF discharges, is located within the Eastern WRF service 

area shown on Figure 8, and is currently on the State's Verified List of impaired water bodies for nutrients (TSI). It 

should also be noted that unnamed WBIDs 3021 and 3027, shown on Figure 8, are located within the Eastern WRF 

service area and are on the State's Verified List of impaired water bodies for fecal coliform though a fecal coliform 

TMDL has not been developed at this date. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2394
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Nutrient and DO TMDL for Lake Harney 

Lake Harney was verified as impaired for nutrients and low DO due to elevated chlorophyll-a (chl-a) and depressed DO 

concentrations, as verified through water quality assessments. The lake was added to the Verified List of impaired 

waters for the Middle St. Johns Basin by Secretarial Order on May 19, 2009. FDEP adopted a nutrient and DO TMDL in 

December 2009 for six Middle St. Johns River Segments between the inlet of Lake Harney (WBID 2964A) and St. 

Johns river above Wekiva River (WBID 2893C). 

The nutrient targets for Lake Harney were established based on calculations performed by FDEP, paleolimnological 

studies, and comparison to reference lakes. Based on these three methods, FDEP established final target nutrient 

concentrations of 0.07 mg/L for TP and 1.18 mg/L for TN. 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information. See Figure 8, Lake Georgia and the Eastern WRF 

service area. See original comment letter. 

The TMDL for Lake Harney is expressed in terms of both lbs/yr and percent reduction of TN and TP, and represents the 

long-term average TN and TP loadings that the lake can assimilate and maintain balanced aquatic flora and fauna. The 

required reductions from the TMDL for Lake Harney are shown below in Table 9. 

Original comment letter contains additional data or information. See Table 9, Lake Harney TMDLs and Percent Load 

Reduction Targets. See original comment letter. 

OCU Current and Planned BMAP Commitments 

FDEP has not yet adopted a BMAP for the Wekiva Basin. Consequently, Orange County currently has no indication of 

the required long-term reductions required of its WRF discharges and OCU has not determined the type or timing of the 

formal commitments that will need to be implemented to reduce nutrient loadings to the river system and the 

springshed. However, OCU has started formulating potential planned activities that may eventually be considered as 

planned BMAP activities. A list of these potential activities is included in Attachment 1. 

Currently the Eastern WRF is an advanced wastewater treatment facility and OCU does not have any planned projects 

in place at this time to further reduce its annual nutrient loads being discharged to surface waters. 

Comment ID 1372-1.001.016 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Exhibit A which includes a long list of 

submitted documents. These documents were submitted jointly by the following: The Everglades Agricultural Area 

Environmental Protection District, The Florida Sugar Cane League, United States Sugar Corporation, New Hope Sugar 

Company, and Okeelanta Corporation. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2395
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1372-1.001.023 

Author Name: Phillips L. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Exhibit B: SAB Review of Emperical 

Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Development. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1431-5.001.001 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 1431-9.001.001 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2396
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 1434-1.001.032 

Author Name: Ford C. 

Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Bachman, R., Hoyer, M., and D. Canfield, Jr. 2010. Draft alternative nutrient criteria for Florida Lakes. Florida 

LAKEWATCH Program, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 5 pp. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) 

Report and 303(d) list update. Tallahassee, FL. 156 pp 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. Numeric Nutrient Criteria Preliminary Assessment of Florida's 

Fresh Waters. Tallahassee, FL. Excel spreadsheet. 

Griffith, E. G., Canfield, D. E., Horsburgh, C. A., and J. M. Omernik. 1997. Lake Regions of Florida. EPN600/R-97-127. 

U.S. EPA. Corvallis, OR. 82 pp. 

James, R. T., Havens, K. E., McCormick, P., Jones, B., and C. Ford 2010 Water Quality Trends in Shallow South 

Florida Lakes and Assessment of Regional vs. Local Forcing Functions in "Biogeochemistry of Nutrients and 

Contaminants", Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Conference. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 

Silva, P. S., 2010. Letter to Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Sole, March 17, 2010. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2397
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2010. Comments of the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

concerning Proposed 40 CFR Part 131 - Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. 

20 pp. 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.019 

Author Name: Lewis T. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Attachment A, which is a map showing 

special drainage districts in Palm Beach County. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.020 

Author Name: Lewis T. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Attachment B, which is a copy of a brochure 

for the Lake Worth Drainage District as well as a second brochure called "Integral to Everglades Restoration” both of 

which were prepared by the Lake Worth Drainage District. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.021 

Author Name: Lewis T. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Attachment C, which is a document titled 

"Lake Worth Drainage District and the Restudy” prepared by the Lake Worth Drainage District. See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.022 

Author Name: Lewis T. 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Attachment D, a document titled "National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permitting Analysis” prepared for Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A. and The 

Lake Worth Drainage District. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2398
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1445-1.001.023 

Author Name: Lewis T.
 

Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Attachment E, which is a letter from the 

Lake Worth Drainage District to James E. Charles of Lewis, Longman, and Walker, P.A., stating that attached to the 

letter are the data regarding Chlorophyll A, Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus from four sample sites in the LWDD 

service area. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1462-1.001.016 

Author Name: Helfrich C.
 

Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the City of Boca Raton Resolution 43-2010. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1463-1.001.002 

Author Name: Cole T.
 

Organization: Oertel, Fernandez, Cole and Bryant, P.A.
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an SAB review of EPA's draft guidance 

document titled Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1464-2.001.008 

Author Name: Ettinger A.
 

Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al.
 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

References 

Ambrose, R.B., T.A. Wool, J.P. Connolly, and R.W. Schanz (1988) WASP4, A hydrodynamic and water quality modelmodel theory, user's manual, and programmer's guide (model developed by D.M. DiToro, J.J. Fitzpatrick, and R.V. 

Thomann). Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2399
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Bacchus, S.T. and P.J. Barile (2005) Discriminating sources and flowpaths of anthropogenic nitrogen discharges to 

Florida springs, streams and lakes. Environmental and Engineering Geoscience 11: 347-369. 

Bachmann, R.W., C.A. Horsburgh, M.V. Hoyer, L.K. Mataraza, and D.E. Canfield Jr. (2002) Hydrobiologia 470: 219­

234. 

Barrett, S.C.H. (1989) Waterweed invasions. Scientific American 261: 90-97. 

Basu, B.K. and F.R. Pick (1995) Longitudinal and seasonal development of planktonic chlorophyll a in the Rideau River, 

Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 804-815. 

Basu, B.K. and F.R. Pick (1996) Factors regulating phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass in temperate rivers. 

Limnology and Oceanography 41: 1572-1577. 

Beck, W.M. Jr. (1973) Chemical and physical aspects of the Blackwater River in northwestern Florida, pp. 231-241. In: 

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ephemeroptera, Volume 1970, by W.L. Peters and J.G. Peters 

(eds.). Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Aug. 17-20, 1970. Brill Publishers (ISBN-10: 9004035907; ISBN13: 978- 9004035904). Available at: 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xskUAAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA231&dq=Blac 

k+water+river+fl+panhandle&ots=AI7M2TAL8H&sig=BqyFQ8gQF3u0vJFCykSuWs7OfkE#v =onepage&q=&f=false. 

Beck, W.M. Jr. (1965) The streams of Florida. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Science 10: 91-120. 

Biggs, B.J.F. (2000) Eutrophication of streams and rivers: dissolved nutrient - chlorophyll relationships for benthic algae. 

Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 17-31. 

Brown, Claude D., Mark V. Hoyer, Roger W. Bachmann, and Daniel E. Canfield, Jr. 2000. Nutrientchlorophyll 

relationships: an evaluation of empirical nutrient-chlorophyll models using Florida and north-temperate lake data. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 1574-1583. 

Brown, M.T. and M.B. Vivas (2005) Landscape development intensity index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

101: 289-309. 

Burkholder, J.M. (2002) Cyanobacteria, pp. 952-982. In: Encyclopedia of Environmental Microbiology, by G. Bitton 

(ed.). Wiley Publishers, New York. 

Burkholder, J.M. (2009) Harmful algal blooms, pp. 264-285. In: Encyclopedia of Inland Waters, Volume 1, by G.E. 

Likens (ed.) Elsevier, Oxford, UK. 

Burns, J. 2007. Chapter 5: Toxic cyanobacteria in Florida waters, pp. 117-126. In: Proceedings of the Interagency, 

International Symposium on Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms (ISOC-HAB): State of the Science and Research 

Needs, by H.K. Hudnell (ed.). Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2400
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Canfield, D. E., Jr. and L. M. Hodgson. 1983. Prediction of Secchi disc depths in Florida lakes: impact of algal biomass 

and organic color. Hydrobiologia 99: 51-60. 

Canfield, D. E., Jr., S. B. Linda and L. M. Hodgson. 1984. Relations between color and some limnological 

characteristics of Florida lakes. Water Resources Bulletin 20: 323-329. 

Canfield, D.E. Jr., M.J. Maceina, L.M. Hodgson, and K.A. Langeland (1983) Limnological features of some northwestern 

Florida lakes. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 2: 67-79. 

Diamond, J.M., D.G. Mackler, W.J. Rasnake, and D. Gruber (1993) Derivation of site-specific ammonia criteria for an 

effluent-dominated headwater stream. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12: 649-658. 

Dillon, P.J. and F.H. Rigler (1974) The phosphorus-chlorophyll relationship in lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 19: 

767-773. 

Dodds, W.K. (2006) Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 671-680. 

Dodds, W.K., J.R. Jones, and E.B. Welch (1998) Suggested classification of stream trophic state: Distribution of 

temperate stream types by chlorophyll, total nitrogen, and phosphorus. Water Research 32: 1455-1462. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2008) Chapter 62-302.800, Surface Water Quality Standards. 

FDEP, Tallahassee, FL, 59 pp. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62-302/62-302.pdf. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2009a) Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria History and Status. 

FDEP, Tallahassee, FL., 11 pp. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/fl-nnc-summary100109.pdf. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2009b) Technical Support Document: Development of 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Lakes and Streams. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL, 173 pp. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2010a - Feb. 1) Evaluation of Florida Benchmark Site 

Exceedance Frequency Relative to EPA's Proposed In-Stream Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection 

Values (DPVs). Prepared by the Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL, 9 pp. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) (2010b - 16 Feb.) Evaluation of Florida's Status Network Data 

Relative to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria In-Stream Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection 

Values (DPVs) for Streams. Prepared by the Watershed Monitoring Section of the Bureau of Assessment and 

Restoration Support. FDEP, Tallahassee, FL, 12 pp. 

Froelich, P.N. (1988) Kinetic control of dissolved phosphate in natural rivers and estuaries: A primer on the phosphate 

buffer mechanism. Limnology and Oceanography 33: 649-668. 

Glasgow, H.B. and J.M. Burkholder (2000) Water quality trends and management implications from a five-year study of 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2401
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

a eutrophic estuary. Ecological Applications 10: 1024-1046. 

Glibert, P.M., C.A. Heil, D. Hollander, M. Revilla, A. Hoare, J. Alexander, and S. Murasko (2004) Evidence for dissolved 

organic nitrogen and phosphorus uptake during a cyanobacterial bloom in Florida Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

280: 73-83. 

Havens, K.E., N.G. Aumen, R.T. James, and V.H. Smith (1996) Rapid ecological changes in a large subtropical lake 

undergoing cultural eutrophication. Ambio 25: 150-155. 

Heiskary, S. and H. Markus (2003) Establishing Relationships Among In-Stream Nutrient Concentrations, 

Phytoplankton Abundance and Composition, Fish IBI and Biochemical Oxygen Demand in Minnesota USA Rivers. 

Environmental Analysis & Outcomes Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN, 100 pp. 

Hollabaugh, C.L. and R.R. Harris (2004) Refinement of sampling methods for analysis of nutrients in surface waters. 

Environmental Geosciences 11: 112-128. 

Howarth, R.W., G. Billen, D. Swaney, A. Townsend, N. Jaworski, K. Lajtha, J.A. Downing, R. Elmgren, N. Caraco, T. 

Jordan, F. Berendse, J. Freney, V. Kudeyarov, P. Murdoch, and Z. Zhao- Liang (1996) Regional nitrogen budgets and 

riverine N & P fluxes for the drainages to the North Atlantic Ocean: natural and human influences. Biogeochemistry 35: 

75-139. 

Jeppeson, E., M. Søndergaard, J.P. Jensen, K.E. Havens, O. Anneville, L. Carvahlo, M.F. Coveney, R. Deneke, M.T. 

Dokulil, B. Foy, D. Gerdeaux, S.E. Hampton, S. Hilt, K. Kangur, J. Köhler, E.H.H.R. Lammens, T.L. Lauridsen, M. 

Manca, M.R. Miracle, B. Moss, P. Noges, G. Persson, G. Phillips, R. Portielje, S. Romo, C.L. Schelske, D. Straile, I. 

Tatrai, E. Willn, and M. Winder (2005) Lake responses to reduced nutrient loading - an analysis of contemporary longterm data from 35 case studies. Freshwater Biology 50: 1747-1771. 

Jones, J. and R. Bachmann (1976) Prediction of phosphorus and chlorophyll levels in lakes. Journal of the Water 

Pollution Control Federation 48: 2176-2184. 

Lapointe, B.E., P.J. Barile, and W.R. Matzie (2004) Anthropogenic nutrient enrichment of seagrass and coral reef 

communities in the Lower Florida Keys: discrimination of local versus regional nitrogen sources. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 308: 23-58. 

Lapointe, B.E. and M.W. Clark (1992) Nutrient inputs from the watershed and coastal eutrophication in the Florida Keys. 

Estuaries 15: 465-476. 

Lapointe, B.E. and W.R. Matzie (1996) Effects of stormwater nutrient discharges on eutrophication processes in 

nearshore waters of the Florida Keys. Estuaries 19 (2B): 422-435. 

Lapointe, B.E., J.D. O'Connell, and G.S. Garrett (1990) Nutrient couplings between on-site sewage disposal systems, 

groundwaters, and nearshore surface waters of the Florida Keys. Biogeochemistry 10: 289-307. 

Mallin, M.A., L.B. Cahoon, M.R. McIver, D.C. Parsons and G.C. Shank (1999) Alternation of factors limiting 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2402
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

phytoplankton production in the Cape Fear Estuary. Estuaries 22:985-996. 

Mallin, M.A., V.L. Johnson, S.H. Ensign, and T.A. MacPherson (2006) Factors contributing to hypoxia in rivers, lakes, 

and streams. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 690-701. 

Mallin, M.A., M.R. McIver, S.H. Ensign and L.B. Cahoon (2004a) Photosynthetic and heterotrophic impacts of nutrient 

loading to blackwater streams. Ecological Applications 14:823-838. 

Mallin, M.A., H.W. Paerl, J. Rudek, and P.W. Bates (1993) Regulation of estuarine primary production by watershed 

rainfall and river flow. Marine Ecology Progress Series 93: 199-203. 

Mallin, M.A., D.C. Parsons, V.L. Johnson, M.R. McIver and H.A. CoVan (2004b) Nutrient limitation and algal blooms in 

urbanizing tidal creeks. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 298:211-231. 

Maddox, G.L., J.M. Lloyd, T.M. Scott, S.B. Upchurch, and R. Copeland (1992) Florida's Groundwater Quality Monitoring 

Program - Background Hydrochemistry. Florida Geological Survey Special Publication 34. Florida Geological Survey, 

Tallahassee, FL. 

Miltner, R.J. and E.T. Rankin (1998) Primary nutrients and the biotic integrity of rivers and streams. Freshwater Ecology 

40: 145-158. 

Morris, D.P., W.M. Lewis (1988) Phytoplankton nutrient limitation in Colorado mountain lakes. Freshwater Biology 20: 

315-327. 

National Research Council (NRC) (2000) Clean Coastal Waters - Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient 

Pollution. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

National Research Council (NRC), 2002. Florida Bay Research Programs and Their Relation to the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan. Report by the Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem. Water 

Science and Technology Board, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Washington, DC. 

Nixon, S.W. (1995) Coastal marine eutrophication: a definition, social causes, and future concerns. Ophelia 41: 199­

219. 

Pinowska, A., R.J. Stevenson, J.O. Sickman, A. Albertin, and M. Anderson (2007) Integrated Interpretation of Survey 

for Determining Nutrient Thresholds for Macroalgae in Florida Springs: Macroalgal Relationships to Water, Sediment, 

and Macroalgae Nutrients, Diatom Indicators and Land Use. Report to the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Tallassee, FL. 

Pollman, C.D., W.M. Landing, J.J. Perry Jr., and T. Fitzpatrick (2002) Wet deposition of phosphorus in Florida. 

Atmospheric Environment 36:2309-2318. 

Pringle, C.M. (1990) Nutrient spatial heterogeneity: Effects on community structure, physiognomy, and diversity of 

stream algae. Ecology 71: 905-920. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2403
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Robertson, D., and E. Roerish (1999) Influence of various water quality sampling strategies on load estimates for small 

streams. Water Resources Research 35: 3747-3759. 

Rudek, J., H. W. Paerl, M. A. Mallin, and P. W. Bates (1991) Seasonal and hydrological control of phytoplankton 

nutrient limitation in the lower Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina. Marine Ecology Progress Series 75: 133-142. 

Schmitz, D.C., J.D. Schardt, A.G. Leslie, F.A. Dray, J.A. Osborne, and B.V. Nelson (1993) The ecological impact and 

management history of three invasive alien aquatic plants in Florida. In: Biological Pollution - the Control and Impact of 

Invasive Exotic Species. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, 261 pp. 

Scott, T.M., G.H. Means, R.P. Meegan, R.C. Means, S.B. Upchurch, R.E. Copeland, J. Jones, T. Roberts, and A. Willet 

(2004) Springs of Florida. Bulletin No. 66. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL, 677 pp. 

Silva, S.J. (2010) Letter to Mr. Thomas Danielson, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, March 15. Water 

Quality Section Branch, U.S. EPA Region 1, Boston, MA. 

Sommer, U. (1985) Comparison between steady state and non-steady state competition: Experiments with natural 

phytoplankton. Limnology and Oceanography 30: 335-346. 

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) (2007) 2006 South Florida Environmental Report, Chapter 10: 

Lake Okeechobee Protection Program - State of the Lake and Watershed. SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL, 102 pp. 

Available at: http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_sfer/portlet_prevreport/2006_sfer/volu 

me1/chapters/v1_ch_10.pdf. 

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) (2010) 2009 South Florida Environmental Report, Chapter 12 ­

Management and Restoration of Coastal Ecosystems. SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL, 166 pp. Available at: 

https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_sfer/portlet_sfer/tab2236041/2009report 

/report/v1/chapters/v1_ch12.pdf. 

Southeast District (1999) Southeast District Assessment and Monitoring Program - M-Canal, Palm Beach County. 

Southeast District Surface Water Quality Section, Port St. Lucie, FL. Available at: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/southeast/ecosum/ecosums/m-canal.pdf. 

Stanley, E.H. and J.T. Maxted (2008) Changes in the dissolved nitrogen pool across land cover gradients in Wisconsin 

streams. Ecological Applications 18: 1579-1590. 

Stansfield, B. (2001) Effects of sampling frequency and laboratory detection limits on the determination of time series 

water quality trends. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35: 1071-1075. 

Stevenson, R.J., A. Pinowska, and B. Wang (2004) Ecological Condition of Algae and Nutrients in Florida Springs. 

Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. 

Stevenson, R.J. and B. Wang (2001) Developing and Testing Algal Indicators of Nutrient Status in Florida Streams. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2404
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL, 36 pp. 

Tomasko, D.A., C.A. Corbett, C.A., H.S. Greening, and G.E. Raulerson (2005) Spatial and temporal variation in 

seagrass coverage in southwest Florida: Assessing the relative effects of anthropogenic nutrient load reduction and 

rainfall in four contiguous estuaries. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 797-805. 

Tomasko, D.A., C.J. Dawes, and M.O. Hall (1996) The effects of anthropogenic nutrient enrichment on turtle grass 

(Thalassia testudinum) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Estuaries 19: 448-456. 

Tomasko, D.A., D.L. Bristol, and J.A. Ott (2001) Assessment of present and future nitrogen loads, water quality, and 

seagrass (Thalassia testudinum) depth distribution in Lemon Bay, Florida. Estuaries 24: 926-938. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2000) Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations ­

Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria - Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion 

XII - Southeastern Coastal Plain. Report #EPA 822-B-00-021. Office of Water and Office of Science and Technology ­

Health and Ecological Criteria Division, US EPA, Washington, DC, 24 pp. + appendices. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/nutrient.html. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2010a) Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's 

Lakes and Flowing Waters, Proposed Rule. 40 CFR Part 131 [EPA-HQ-OW- 2009-0596; FRL-9105-1] RIN 2040-AF11. 

Federal Register, Volume 75, No. 16, Tuesday, January 26, 2010. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2010b) Technical Support Document (TSD) for U.S. EPA's 

Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh Waters. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, 

Washington, DC. 

Van Nieuwenhuyse, E.E. and J.R. Jones (1996) Phosphorus-chlorophyll relationship in temperate streams and its 

variation with stream catchment area. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 99-105. 

Wetzel, R.G. (2001) Limnology, 3rd edition. Academic Press, New York, NY. 

Weigel, B.M. and D.M. Robertson (2007) Identifying biotic integrity and water chemistry relations in nonwadeable rivers 

of Wisconsin: toward the development of nutrient criteria. Environmental Management 40: 691-708. 

Whitton, B.A. (ed.) (1975) River Ecology. Studies in Ecology (Oxford, England), Volume 2. University of California 

Press, Berkeley, 725 pp. 

Williams, C.D., J. Burns, A. Chapman, L. Flewelling, M. Pawlowicz, and W. Carmichael (2001) Assessment of 

Cyanotoxins in Florida's Lakes, Rivers and Reservoirs. Prepared for the Florida Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force, 

Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg, FL, 105 pp. 

Winchester, J.W. and J.M. Fu, 1992. Atmospheric deposition of nitrate and its transport to the Apalachicola Bay Estuary 

in Florida. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 65: 23-42. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2405
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

World Health Organization [WHO] (2003) Guidelines for Safe Recreational Waters, Volume 1 - Coastal and Fresh 

Waters, Chapter 8: Algae and cyanobacteria in fresh water. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. 

Comment ID 1474-1.001.156 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a website. See 

http://myfwc.com/RECREATION/FW_forecasts_swr.htm for more information on catch rates in the Florida Panhandle. 

Comment ID 1474-3.001.001 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter about the Freedom of Information 

Act Request No: HQ-FOI-00916-10 from Evelyn Washington of the Standards and Health Protection Division. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1474-4.001.001 

Author Name: Herz W. 

Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter regarding the Request for Records 

Relating to EPA’s Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Florida from Hall & Associates. See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 1475-1.001.020 

Author Name: Arrington D.
 

Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District
 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

Arrington, D. A., and R. C. Dent. 2008. Maintenance of groundwater quality throughout twenty years of reuse. Water 

Practice 2:1-10. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2406
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

McKim, T., J. A. Jackson, C. Ferraro, and A. Arrington. 2009. Optimizing Reuse: Lessons from the Roundtable. Florida 

Water Resources Journal 61:16-18. 

Orem, W., P. W. Swarzenski, B. F. McPherson, M. Hedgepath, H. E. Lerch, C. Reich, A. E. Torres, M. D. Corum, and 

R. E. Roberts. 2007. Assessment of Groundwater Input and Water Quality Changes Impacting Natural Vegetation in the 

Loxahatchee River and Floodplain Ecosystem, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1304. 

Riddler, M. S., R. C. Dent, and D. A. Arrington. 2006. Effects of two hurricanes on Syringodium filiforme, manatee 

grass, within the Loxahatchee River estuary, Southeast Florida. Estuaries and Coasts 29:1019-1025. 

SFWMD. 2006. Restoration Plan for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. South Florida Water Management 

District, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Stanley, E., D. A. Arrington, R. C. Dent, D. G. Burden, and R. B. Taylor. 2009. Preserving the environment by 

increasing reuse supplies: blending nanofiltration concentrate & treated effluent. Florida Water Resources Journal 

61:52-59. 

Comment ID 1477-1.001.026 

Author Name: Rudd F. 

Organization: Florida Engineering Society 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of page 48 of the 2008 Integrated Water 

Quality Assessment for Florida which includes Figure 3. Phosphorus Trends in Florida Waters 1970-2005 (based on 

733,000 measurements from 3,330 waterbodies). See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1481-1.001.035 

Author Name: Ford C. 

Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Bachman, R., Hoyer, M., and D. Canfield, Jr. 201 O. Draft alternative nutrient criteria for Florida Lakes. Florida 

LAKEWATCH Program, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 5 pp. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) 

Report and 303(d) list update. Tallahassee, FL. 156 pp 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. Numeric Nutrient Criteria Preliminary Assessment of Florida's 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2407
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Fresh Waters. Tallahassee, FL. Excel spreadsheet. 

Griffith, E. G., Canfield, D. E., Horsburgh, C. A., and J. M. Omemik. 1997. Lake Regions of Florida. EPN6001R-97-127. 

U.S. EPA. Corvallis, OR. 82pp. 

James, R. T., Havens, K. E., McCormick, P., Jones, 8., and C. Ford 2010 Water Quality Trends in Shallow South 

Florida Lakes and Assessment of Regional vs. Local Forcing Functions in "Biogeochemistry of Nutrients and 

Contaminants", Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Conference. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 

Silva, P. S., 2010. Letter to Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Sole, March 17,2010. 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2010. Comments of the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

concerning Proposed 40 CFR Part 131 - Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. 

20 pp. 

Comment ID 1482-1.001.030 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Orignal comment letter contains additional information from Conservancy of Southwest Florida as a list of appendices
 

and exhibits. See original comment letter.
 

Appendix 1 Ambient WQ Criteria Recommendations Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal
 

Nutrient Criteria Lakes and Reservoirs in Nutrient Ecoregion XI/. (USEPA)
 

Appendix 2 Harmful Algal Blooms in Florida. (Steidinger et al.)
 

Appendix 3 2010 South Florida Environmental Report (SFWMD)
 

Appendix 4 Ecological Calibrations of Estero Bay Basin. (Schrnid)
 

Appendix 5 Nutrient Couplings Between On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems, Groundwater and Nearshore Surface
 

Waters of the Florida Keys. (Lapointe et al.)
 

Appendix 6 South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. (USFWS)
 

Appendix 7 Status and Conservation of the American Crocodile in Florida. (Massotti and Cherkiss)
 

Appendix 8 Florida Manatee Recovery Plan. (USFWS)
 

Appendix 9 South Florida Environmental Quality. (NOAA)
 

Appendix 10 Canal's Owner Manual. (City of Cape Coral)
 

Appendix 11 Distribution, Habitat Use, and Movements of Juvenile Smalltooth Sawfish, Pristis Pectinata, in the
 

Charlotte Harbor Estuarine System, Florida. (FFWCC)
 

Appendix 12 Ditches and Canals in the Management of Fens: Opportunity or Risk? (Langheinrich et al.)
 

Appendix 13 Technical Support Document for US EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface
 

Fresh Waters. Proposed Criteria for Canals. (EPA)
 

Appendix 14 Use of Natural Wetlands for Stormwater Treatment powerpoint handout (FDEP)
 

Appendix 15 Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater Best Management Practices. (EPA)
 

Appendix 16 Responses to 7/16/09 Comments from Conservancy of Southwest Florida letter from FDEP (Mandrup11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2408
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Poulsen)
 

Appendix 17 Group 3, Cycle 2 Master List for Impaired Waters. (FDEP)
 

Appendix 18 Conservancy of Southwest Florida's 3/11/10 Designated Uses Letter to FDEP. (Conservancy of Southwest
 

Florida)
 

Appendix 19 Cumulative U.S. Clean Water SRF Investment (EPA)
 

Appendix 20 Harmful Algal Blooms and Coastal Business: Economic Consequences for Florida. (Larkin and Adams)
 

Appendix 21 Final Report: Economic Effects of HABs on Coastal Communities and Shellfish Culture in Florida. (Larkin
 

et al.)
 

Appendix 22 Offshore Red Tide-Associated Mortalities and FWRl Event Response (Florida Fish and Wildlife
 

Conservation Commission)
 

Appendix 23 It's Time to End the Slime. (Earthjustice)
 

Appendix 24 Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters. (EPA)
 

Appendix 25 National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria. (EPA)
 

Appendix 26 Nutrient Criteria Development; Notice of Ecoregional Nutrient Criteria (EPA)
 

Appendix 27 Memorandum from Benjamin H. Grumbles on Nutrient Pollution and Numeric Water Quality Standards.
 

(EPA)
 

Appendix 28 EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards. (EPA)
 

Appendix 29 Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro on Agency Response to the Drafl Evaluation Report to Dan
 

Engelberg. (EPA)
 

Appendix 30 An Urgent Call to Action. (State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group)
 

Appendix 31 Draft Technical Support Document: Development of Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Lakes and
 

Streams. (EPA)
 

Appendix 32 General Information: Nutrients (Chesapeake Bay Program)
 

Appendix 33 Ocean Issue Briefs- Harmful Algal Blooms and Toxins (SeaWeb)
 

Appendix 34 Harmful Algal Blooms (NOAA-National Ocean Service)
 

Appendix 35 About Harmful Algal Blooms (CDC)
 

Appendix 36 FDEP's List of Inorganic Contaminants for Drinking Water. (FDEP)
 

Appendix 37 U.S. EPA. Water Quality Criteria for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution (EPA)
 

Appendix 38 Economic Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms. (National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science)
 

Appendix 39 Environmental Containments Program. (USFWS)
 

Appendix 40 Clearing the Water for Mussels. (Noguchi et al.)
 

Appendix 41 Draft Recovery Plan for Endangered Fat Threeridge, Shinyrayed Pocketbook, Gulf Moccasinshell,
 

Ochlockonee Moccasinshell, Oval Pigtoe, and Threatened Chipola Slabshell and the Purple Bankclimber. (USFWS)
 

Appendix 42 Effects of 2005 Red Tide Event on Recreational Fisheries in Southwest Florida. (FFWCC)
 

Appendix 43 Proposed Endangered Status for a Distinct Population Segment of Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata)
 

in the United States. (National Marine Fisheries Service)
 

Appendix 44 Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Plan. (National Marine Fisheries Service)
 

Appendix 45 Aquatic Eutrophication Promotes Pathogenic Infection in Amphibians. (National Academy of Sciences)
 

Appendix 46 Amphibians Malformations. (University of Colorado)
 

Appendix 47 Health Menace Lurks in Lakes (Campbell)
 

Appendix 48 Algae Possible Cause of increased Alligator Deaths in Lake Griffin. (Ross)
 

Appendix 49 Effects of Toxic Algae on Alligators and Alligator Egg Development. (USGS)
 

Appendix 50 Red Tide May Kill Marine Life Even After It Dissipates. (Spinner)
 

Appendix 51 Florida Manatee Management Plan. (FFWCC)
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2409
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Appendix 52 Importance of Seagrass. (FFWCC)
 

Appendix 53 Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, Third Edition. (USFWS)
 

Appendix 54 Effects of Red Tide on Marine Animals. (FFWCC)
 

Appendix 55 Old Dominion Launch Project to Restore Sponges in Barren Parts of Florida Bay. (Nordlie)
 

Exhibit 1 Natural Freshwater Streams Map
 

Exhibit 2 Estero River - Freshwater Portion Map
 

Exhibit 3 Halfway Creek - Freshwater Portion Map
 

Exhibit 4 Spring Creek - Freshwater Portion Map
 

Exhibit 5 Imperial River/Oak Creek - Freshwater Portion Map
 

Exhibit 6 Cocohatchee River - Freshwater Protion Map
 

Exhibit 7 Gordon River - Freshwater Portion Map
 

Exhibit 8 Freshwater Rivers in Southwest Florida Map
 

Comment ID 1530-10.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the resume of Adrienne D. Nemura, Vice 

President of LimnoTech. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1530-11.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a corporate overview of LimnoTech. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1530-13.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the memorandum titled Nutrient 

Management Activities Implemented in Response to the Lower St. Johns River Nutrient TMDL from Limnotech. See 

original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2410
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1530-2.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about the APRICOT Act. See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 1530-3.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the EXHIBIT 1 BASIN MANAGEMENT 

ACTION PLAN For the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients Adopted by the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection for the Lower St. Johns River Basin Main Stem. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1530-4.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the bill creating the Clay County Sewer 

Authority. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1530-6.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN CLAY COUNTY AND THE CLAY COUNTY UTILITY AUTHORITY REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF 

WATER QUALITY CREDITS. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1530-7.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2411
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLAY COUNTY AND THE CLAY COUNTY UTILITY AUTHORITY REGARDING THE 

TRANSFER OF WATER QUALITY CREDITS. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1530-8.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the resume of David Dilks, Vice President of 

LimnoTech. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1530-9.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the resume of Patrick Bradley, Senior 

Scientist for LimnoTech. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1530.001.017 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

REFERENCES 

EPA, 2010. Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA's Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland 

Surface Fresh Waters. Appendix E, supra. 

EPA, 2008. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Nutrients, Lower St. Johns River. Prepared by: US EPA Region 4, 

Atlanta, Georgia. January,2008. Appendix J.I. 

EPA, 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual Rivers and Streams. Office of Water. Washington, DC. EPA822-B-00-002. Appendix J.2. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2412
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

FDEP, 2010. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and Springs/Clear Streams Proposed January 

26,2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency. Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, March 

12,2010. Appendix J.3. 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 2004. Mississippi's Plan for Nutrient Criteria Development. Appendix 

J.4. 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2008. Nutrient Criteria Development Plan for the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. Water Division, Office of Water Quality Programs. Appendix J.5. 

Comment ID 1530.001.019 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

REFERENCES 

EPA, 2010. Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for Florida. Office of Science and Technology. January 2010. Appendix 1.1. 

EPA, 2009. Proposed Total Maximum Daily Loads for Black Creek and Little Black Creek, WBIDs: 2415B & C and 

2368, Dissolved Oxygen. EPA Region 4, Atlanta, GA. September 30, 2009. Appendix 1.2. 

EPA, 2004. Guidelines for Water Reuse. Municipal Support Division, Office of Wastewater Management. EPAJ625/R04/l 08. Appendix 1.3. 

Tillman, D. H., C. F. Cerco, M. R. Noel, J. 1. Martin, and J. Hamrick, 2004. Three-Dimensional Eutrophication Model of 

the Lower St. Johns River, Florida. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. ERDC/EL 

TR-04-13. Appendix L.4. 

Comment ID 1530.001.048 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

XVI. DOCUMENTS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2413
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

CCUA adopts the following documents by reference into its Comment: 

(1) Sections B.l., B.2., D.l., D.2., F., G. J., K. and Appendix B of FDEP comments to the Proposed Rule, which are 

attached as Appendix J.3. CCUA does not adopt as its own the rest of FDEP's comments. 

(2) The oral comments of Dr. Doug Durbin. Appendix Z. 

(3) The FWEA Comments. Appendix AA. 

Comment ID 1530.001.056 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a list of appendices. See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 1530.001.063 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS
 

"APRICOT Act" shall mean the APRICOT Act of 1994. A copy of the APRICOT Act is attached hereto as Appendix B.
 

The APRICOT Act has been codified in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
 

"AWT" shall mean Advanced Wastewater Treatment. Advanced wastewater treatment is defined in section 403.086,
 

Florida Statutes, as "that treatment which will provide a reclaimed water product" that, among other things, does not
 

contain "more, on a permitted annual average basis, than" 3mglL of Total Nitrogen and 1 mglL of Total Phosphorus.
 

Section 403.086, Florida Statutes, also notes that advanced wastewater treatment has "received high level disinfection,
 

as defined by rule of the FDEP."
 

"BMAP" shall mean Basin Management Action Plan, or, when required by the context, the Basin Management Action
 

Plan for the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients Adopted by the Florida Department of
 

Environmental Protection for the Lower St. Johns River Basin Main Stem. A copy of the Basin Management Action Plan
 

for the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients Adopted by the Florida Department of
 

Environmental Protection for the Lower St. Johns River Basin Main Stem is attached as Appendix C.
 

"BMP" shall mean best management practices.
 

"BNR" shall mean biological nutrient removal.
 

"CCUA" shall mean the Clay County Utility Authority. CCUA was created by special act of the Florida Legislature. A
 

copy of the special act is attached hereto as Appendix D.
 

"CWA" shall mean the Clean Water Act.
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2414
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

"DPV" shall mean Downstream Protection Value.
 

"EPA" shall mean the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
 

"ERC" shall mean equivalent residential customer(s).
 

"FAC" shall mean the Florida Administrative Code.
 

"F.A.C." shall mean the Florida Administrative Code.
 

"FDEP" shall mean the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Agency. FDEP is created by section 20.255,
 

Florida Statutes.
 

"Fla. Admin. Code" shall mean the Florida Administrative Code.
 

"Fla. Stat." shall mean the Florida Statutes.
 

"FS" shall mean the Florida Statutes.
 

"F.S." shall mean the Florida Statutes.
 

"LOT" shall mean limits of technology.
 

"LSJR" shall mean the Lower St. Johns River basin.
 

"MGD" shall mean million gallons per day.
 

"NPDES" shall mean the national pollutant discharge elimination system.
 

"PLRG" shall mean pollutant load reduction goaL
 

"POTW" shall mean publicly owned treatment works.
 

"Proposed Rule" shall mean both the proposed rule titled Water Quality Standards for the State ofFlorida's Lakes and
 

Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule published on January 26, 2010 and the amendment on March 10, 2010, which
 

extended the comment period.
 

"RO" shall mean reverse osmosis.
 

"SCI" shall mean stream condition index.
 

"SJRWMD" shall mean the St. Johns River Water Management District.
 

"SSAC" shall mean site-specific alternative criteria.
 

"TAC" shall mean technical advisory committee.
 

"TMDL" shall mean total maximum daily load.
 

"TN" shall mean Total Nitrogen.
 

"TP" shall mean Total Phosphorus.
 

"TSD" shall mean the Technical Support Document offered by the EPA in support of the Proposed Rule. A copy of the
 

TSD is attached as Appendix E.
 

"DAA" shall mean use attainability analysis.
 

"WBID" shall mean waterbody identifications.
 

"WLA" shall mean waste load allocation.
 

"WQBEL" shall mean water quality based effluent limitations.
 

"WQS" shall mean water quality standard.
 

"WWTF" shall mean wastewater treatment facility.
 

"WWTP" shall mean wastewater treatment plant.
 

Comment ID 1531-1.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2415
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of The US EPA's Nutrient Criteria Technical 

Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-10.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment contains additional information as an attachment of the memorandum Compliance Schedules for 

Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations in NPDES Permits from EPA. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-11.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of EPA’s GUIDANCE: COORDINATING CSO 

LONG-TERM PLANNING WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEWS. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-12.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment as a settlement agreement with the EPA. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-13.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a print screen from EPA’s Recreational 

Water Quality Criteria, Update to 1986 Criteria web site. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-14.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2416
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a print screen of EPA’s web site Information 

Concerning 2008 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-15.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a 

copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without 

consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 1531-16.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Executive Summary from an unknown 

document. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2417
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1531-17.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of EPA’s web site Region 6 Guidance: 

Recreation Standards and the CWA Section 101 (a) (2) “Swimmable” Goal. See original comment. 

Comment ID 1531-18.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the letter from the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to L. Preston Bryant, Jr., Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, regarding 

the EPA's expectations for the Chesapeake Bay Program's Watershed Implementation Plans. See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 1531-19.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Motion of Inervenor, Florida Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services, for Rehearing and Reconsideration of the Court’s Order of December 30, 2009. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-20.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Motion of Inervenor, Florida Water 

Environment Association Utility Council, Inc., for Rehearing and Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Entered 

December 30, 2009. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-21.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2418
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Consent Decree between EPA and 

Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc., and Save Our Creeks, Inc. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-22.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter from Benjamin Grumbles to 

Secretary Mike Sole. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-23.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Memorandum titled One-time 

Delegation of Authority for the Purpose of Determining Pursuant to Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act 

Whether the State of Florida Needs New or Revised Water Quality Standards for Nutreints. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-3.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Mississippi's Plan for Nutrient Criteria 

Development from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-4.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F.
 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2419
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the NUTRIENT CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT 

PLAN FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA from the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-5.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a memo entitled Assessment of the Effect 

of Clay County Utility Authority APRICOT Act Discharges on Water Quality in the Little Black Creek Watershed from 

Limnotech. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-6.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of US EPA's Preliminary Estimate of Potential 

Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida. See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-7.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Proposed Total Maximum Daily Loads 

Black Creek and Little Black Creek WBIDs 2415B & C and 2368 Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen dated September 30, 

2009 prepared by EPA Region 4. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531-8.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a copy of the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency's Guidelines for Water Reuse dated September 2004. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2420
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1531-9.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the United States Army Corps of Engineers 

Three-Dimensional Eutrophication Model of the Lower St. John's River, Florida dated August 2004. See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 1531.001.001 

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. 

Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection TMDL Report: Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients for the Lower St. Johns River. See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 1551-3.001.001 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a 

copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without 

consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2421
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Comment ID 1551-4.001.001 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a 

copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without 

consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 1551-5.001.001 

Author Name: Levy K. 

Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a 

copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced without 

consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view 

or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies may be 

made as follows: 

In person/writing: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2422
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

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 

Comment ID 1556-2.001.001 

Author Name: Horenstein B. 

Organization: Tri-TAC 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of multiple graphs in Attachment A. Total 

Nitrogen Effluent Concentrations from California POTWs Percent Compliance With Projected Effluent Limits. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1556-3.001.001 

Author Name: Horenstein B. 

Organization: Tri-TAC 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of multiple graphs in Attachment B. Total 

Phosphorus Effluent Concentrations from California POTWs Percent Compliance With Projected Effluent Limits. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1556-4.001.001 

Author Name: Horenstein B. 

Organization: Tri-TAC 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a list of references for the Tri-TAC Letter. 

Attachment C. References 

References Cited in Footnotes of Tri-TAC Letter 

Baker, L.A., P. Westerhoff, and M. Sommerfeld. 2006. Adaptive management using multiple barriers to control tastes 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2423
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

and odors. J. Am. Wat. Works Assoc. 98: 113-126. 

Bott, C. Evaluating the Performance of Nutrient Removal Treatment Processes: Achievable Limits and Statistical 

Reliabilities. WERF. April 2010. 

Burlingame, G.A., R. M.Dann, and G. L. Brock. 1986. A case study of geosmin in Philadelphia's water. J. Am. Wat. 

Works Assoc. 78: 56-61. 

Izaguirre, G., and W. D. Taylor. 2007. Geosmin and MIB events in a new reservoir in southern California. Wat. Sci. 

Technol. 55: 9-14. 

Juttner, F., and S. B. Watson. 2007. Biochemical and ecological control of geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol in source 

waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73: 4395-4406. doi:10.1128/AEM. 02250-06. PMID:17400777. 

Lee, G. F. 2008. Stormwater Runoff Water Quality Newsletter. Volume 11, No. 5, May 8, 2008. Available at 

http://www.gfredlee.com/newsindex.htm. 

Lehman, P.W., G. Boyer, M. Satchwell, and S. Waller. 2008. The influence of environmental conditions on the seasonal 

variation of Microcystis cell density and microcystins concentration in the San Francisco Estuary. Hydrobiologia 600: 

187-204. 

Lehman, P.W., S.J. Teh, G.L. Boyer, M.L. Nobriga, E. Bass, and C. Hogle. 2010. Initial impacts of Microcystis 

aeruginosa blooms on the aquatic food web in the San Francisco Estuary. Hydrobiologia 637: 229-248. 

Losee, R. 2008. Taste and odor problems in southern water supplies. CWEMF Technical Workshop, Sacramento, CA. 

March 25, 2008 

Mioni, C. 2010. Environmental controls on Microcystis & microcystins in San Francisco Estuary (Summer/Fall 2008 & 

2009). Oceans Colloquium, Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove, CA. April 23, 2010. 

Sugiura, N., N. Iwami, Y. Inamori, O. Nishimura, and R. Sudo. 1998. Significance of attached cyanobacteria relevant to 

the occurrence of musty odor in Lake Kasumigaura. Wat. Res. 32: 3549-3554. 

Tung, S., T. Lin, F. Yang, and C. Liu. 2008. Seasonal change and correlation with environmental parameters for 2-MIB 

in Feng-Shen Reservoir, Taiwan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 145: 407-416. doi:10.1007/s10661-007-0049-9. 

Uwins, H. K., P. Teasdale, and H. Stratton. 2007. A case study investigating the occurrence of geosmin and 2­

methylisoborneol (MIB) in the surface waters of the Hinze Dam, Gold Coast, Australia. Water Sci. Technol. 55: 231-238. 

Watson, S. B., McCauley, E., and Downing, J.A. 1997. Patterns in phytoplankton taxonomic composition across 

temperate lakes of differing nutrient status. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42: 486-495. 

Watson, S. B., T. Satchwill, and E. McCauley. 2001a. Drinking water taste and odour: a chrysophyte perspective. Nova 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2424
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Hedwigia 122: 119-146. 

Watson, S. B., T. Satchwill, and E. McCauley. 2001b. Under-ice blooms and sourcewater odour in a nutrient-poor 

reservoir: biological, ecological and applied perspectives. Freshw. Biol. 46: 1-15. doi:10.1046/j.1365­

2427.2001.00769.x. 

Watson, S. B., and J. Ridal. 2004. Periphyton: a primary source of widespread and severe taste and odour. Wat. Sci. 

Tech. 49: 33-39. 

Watson, S. B., M. Charlton, Y. R. Rao, T. Howell, J. Ridal, B. Brownlee, C. Marvin, and S. Millard. 2007. Off flavours in 

large waterbodies: physics, chemistry and biology in synchrony. Water Sci. Technol. 55: 1-18. 

Watson, S.B., J. Ridal, and G. L. Boyer. 2008. Taste and odour and cyanobacterial toxins: impairment, prediction, and 

management in the Great Lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65: 1779-1796/ doi:10.1139/F08-084. 

Yen, H., T. Lin, S. Tung, and M. Hsu. 2007. Correlating 2-MIB and microcystin concentrations with environmental 

parameters in two reservoirs in south Taiwan. Water Sci. Technol. 55: 33-41. 

Zaitlin, B., S. B.Watson, J. Ridal, T. Satchwill, and D. Parkinson. 2003. Actinomycetes in Lake Ontario: habitats and 

production of geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol. J. Am. Water Works Assoc., 95(2), 113-118. 

Zaitlin, B., and S. B.Watson. 2006. Actinomycetes in relation to taste and odour in drinking water: myths, tenets and 

truths. Water Res. 40: 1741-1753. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2006.02.024.PMID:16600325. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2425
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1562-1.001.004 

Author Name: Stewart G. 

Organization: Nabors Giblin & Nickerson on behalf of the Florida Governmental Utility Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachmen of a map of LEHIGH ACRES FACILITY LEE
 

COUNTY, FLORIDA on page 3 of the pdf and a copyrighted page that was removed.
 

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
 

Comment ID 1614-1.001.007 

Author Name: DeBogory P. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information of a table of Conceptual Opinion of Probable Cost for Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria Compliance from South Walton Utility Co., Inc., Miramar, FL. See original coomment letter. 

Comment ID 1615-1.001.021 

Author Name: Dinneen J. 

Organization: Volusia County Public Works 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Attachment 1 – A Map of WBID Boundaries 

prepared by County of Volusia and a table of Water Quality Assessment by WBID Based on Proposed EPA NNC. See 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2426
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1617-1.001.002 

Author Name: Ammerman D.
 

Organization: Florida Water Environment Association and WateReuse Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a web site link. See 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/reuse/inventory.htm for more information referring to Florida water reuse inventory. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1634-1.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C.
 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Executive Summary 2010 South Florida 

Environmental Report dated March 1, 2010 from South Florida Water Management District. See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 1634-2.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C.
 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Science Advisory Board Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (FY 2009) Augmented for Review of Nutrient 

Criteria Guidance. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1634-3.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C.
 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of External Peer Review of EPA’s “Proposed 

Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Inland Waters”. See original comment 

letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2427
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1635-1.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 1635-2.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2428
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

202-566-1744 

Fax: 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Comment ID 1636-1.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE OF DR 

BARRY JOHN FRANKLYN BIGGS FOR THE END OF HEARING REPORT (WATER) ON BEHALF OF HORIZONS 

REGIONAL COUNCIL. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1636-2.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 1636-3.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2429
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 1636-4.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2430
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Comment ID 1637-2.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C.
 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Submissions of Significant Scientific 

Information Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations: Information Supporting the Development of State and 

Tribal Nutrient Criteria. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1637-3.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C.
 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Public Comments on Ecoregional Nutrient 

Criteria Documents. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1637-4.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C.
 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of EPA Response to Peer Review Comments 

on: Draft "Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations: Information Supporting the Development of State and 

Tribal Nutrient Criteria - Lakes and Reservoirs in Ecoregions III, IV, V, and XIV." See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1637-5.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C.
 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of EPA Response to Peer Review Comments 

on: Draft “Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations: Information Supporting the Development of State and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2431
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Tribal Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregions I, IV, V, VIII and X. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1637-6.001.001 

Author Name: Wehle C. 

Organization: South Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the External Expert Peer Review 

Comments on Draft Ecoregional Nutrient Criteria Documents (Documents for ecoregions II, VII, IX, XI were reviewed 

and considered representative of the set of 16 freshwater ecoregional documents. The wetlands criterion document was 

reviewed separately.) See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1647-1.001.032 

Author Name: Kates K. 

Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

References 

Bachmann, Roger W., Mark V. Hoyer, and Daniel E. Canfield, Jr. 2010. Draft Alternative Nutrient Criteria for Florida 

Lakes. Florida LAKEWATCH, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida. 

Budell, Richard, Terry Pride, Holly Stone, James Clements Hodges, Alan W., Thomas J. Stevens, Mohammad 

Rahmani, Tatiana Borisova, and Del Bottcher 2010. Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs of Proposed EPA 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Agriculture. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of 

Agricultural Water Policy, University of Florida/IFAS, Food & Resource Economics Department, and Soil and Water 

Engineering Technology, Inc. April 22, 2010. Available at: 

http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/PDF/Economic_Impacts_of_EPA_Numeric_Criteria_on_Florida_Agriculture_20100 

422.pdf 

Canfield, Daniel E. Jr. and Roger W. Bachmann 2009. The Florida LAKEWATCH Story: Engaging the “Citizen Scientist” 

In Environmental Research. Lakeline 29 (4): 23-26. Available at: http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/Lakeline_Vol_Monit.pdf 

Carollo Engineers 2009. Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida’s Domestic Water Reclamation 

Facilities. November 18, 2009. Available at: 

http://www.fweauc.org/PDFs/FWEAUC%20letter%20to%20Crist%20re%20NNC%20Cost%20Implications%20for%20Fl 

a%20POTWs%20with%20attachment.pdf 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) 2007. TMDLS’s and Agricultural BMPs. Available 

at: http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/PDF/Ag_Bmps_and_Florida_Tmdls.pdf 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2432
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 2010(a) Basin Management Action Plans. Available at: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/bmap.htm 

FDEP 2010(b). Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for 

Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters. February, 15 2010. Available at: 

http://k.b5z.net/i/u/6019781/f/Main_Concerns_with_EPA_Proposed_Numeric_Nutrient_Criteria.pdf 

FDEP 2010(c). Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Lakes. March 16, 2010. Available at: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/fdep_comments_lakes_criteria.pdf 

FDEP 2010(d). Technical Advisory Committee, Numeric Nutrient Criteria. Transcript - Volume 1. April 7, 2010. Pg. 113­

116. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/nutrient_tac_transcript_040710_morning.pdf 

FDEP 2010(e). Technical Advisory Committee, Numeric Nutrient Criteria. Transcript - Volume 2. April 7, 2010. Pg. 154­

160. Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. Available at: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/nutrient_tac_transcript_040710_afternoon.pdf 

Hydroqual 2010. Hydroqual Comments on EPA’s Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing 

Waters (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596). April 19, 2010. (To view the technical report in its entirety, refer to comments 

submitted by Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.). 

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) 2010. Analysis and Comments on Environmental 

Protection Agency Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule. April 25, 2010. 

(To view the technical report in its entirety, refer to comments submitted by Florida Pulp and Paper Association 

Environmental Affairs, Inc.) 

Obreza, Thomas, Mark Clark, Brian Boman, Tatiana Borisova, Matt Cohen, Michael Dukes, Tom Frazer, Ed Hanlon, 

Karl Havens, Chris Martinez, Kati Migliaccio, Sanjay Shukla, and Alan Wright 2010. A Guide to EPA's Proposed 

Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida. University of Florida/IFAS Extension, Soil and Water Science 

Department, document SL316. Available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss528 

Sole, Michael 2010. Overview of EPA’s Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Flowing Waters. Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection Presentation to Florida House of Representatives, Agriculture and Natural 

Resources Policy Committee on February 3, 2010. 

Comment ID 1667-1.001.008 

Author Name: Gierach D. 

Organization: CPH Engineers, Inc. and the City of Sanford 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2433
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

References 

David Childs, Outline of Comments, EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria Workshop (Draft), AWWA Florida, 2010. 

EPA, Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria for Florida, January 2010. 

FDEP, Preliminary Assessment Comparing EPA's Proposed Criteria, 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wgssp/nutrients/federal.htm, accessed March 2010. 

Reardon, Rod, What Numeric Nutrient Criteria Mean to Florida POTWs: Part II. Florida Water Resources Journal, 

October 2009. 

Comment ID 1669-1.001.001 

Author Name: Bachmann R. 

Organization: Florida Lake Watch, University of Florida et al. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

References on Florida Limnology 

Agusti, S., C.M. Duarte, and D.E. Canfield Jr. 1990. Phytoplankton abundance in Florida 

lakes: Evidence for the frequent lack of nutrient limitation. Limnology and Oceanography 

35:181-188 

Allen, M. S., M. V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield Jr. 2000. Factors related to gizzard shad 

and threadfin shad occurrence and abundance in Florida lakes. Journal of Fish Ecology 

57: 291-302 

Bachmann, R. W. 1981. Prediction of total nitrogen in lakes and reservoirs. pp 320-324 

In U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Restoration of lakes and inland waters; 

International symposium on inland waters and lake restoration, September 8-10, 1980, 

Portland, Maine. U.S. EPA 440/5-81-010. 

Bachmann, R. W. 2001. The limiting factor concept What stops growth? Lakeline 

21(1):26-28. 

Bachmann, R. W., and D. E. Canfield Jr. 1996. Use of an alternative method for 

monitoring total nitrogen concentrations in Florida lakes. Hydrobiologia 323:1-8. 

Bachmann, R.W., C.A. Horsburgh, M.A. Hoyer, L.K. Matarazza and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2434
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

2002. Relations between trophic state indicators and plant biomass in Florida lakes. 

Hydobiologia 470:219-234. 

Bachmann, R. W., M. V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 1999. The restoration of Lake 

Apopka in relation to alternative stable states. Hydrobiologia 394:219-232. 

Bachmann, R. W., M. V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2000. Internal heterotrophy 

following the switch from macrophytes to algae in Lake Apopka, Florida. Hydrobiologia 

418:217-227. 

Bachmann, R. W., M. V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2000. The potential for wave 

disturbance in shallow Florida lakes. Lake and Res. Manage. 16:281-291. 

Bachmann, R. W., M. V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield. Jr. 2003. Predicting the frequencies 

of high chlorophyll levels in Florida lakes from average chlorophyll or nutrient data. 

Lake and Reserv. Manage. 19:229-241. 

Bachmann, R.W., M.V. Hoyer and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2004. Aquatic plants and nutrients 

in Florida lakes. Aquatics: 26(3)4-11 

Bachmann, R. W., M. V. Hoyer, C. Fernandez, and D. E. Canfield. Jr. 2003. An 

alternative to proposed phosphorus TMDLs for the management of Lake Okeechobee. 

Lake and Reserv. Manage. 19:251-264. 

Bachmann, R.W., M.V. Hoyer, S.B.Vinzon and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2005 . The origin of 

the fluid mud layer in Lake Apopka, Florida. Limnol. Oceanogr. 50:629-635 

Bachmann, R. W., B. L. Jones, D. D. Fox, M Hoyer, L. A. Bull, and Daniel E. Canfield, 

Jr. 1996. Relations between trophic state indicators and fish in Florida (USA) lakes. Can. 

J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53:842-855 

Bigham, D. L., Hoyer, M. V. and Canfield Jr., D. E. 2009. Survey of toxic algal 

(microcystin) distribution in Florida lakes. Lake and Reservoir Management, 25:3,264 — 

275 

Brown, C. D.., D. E. Canfield, Jr., R. W. Bachmann, and M. V. Hoyer. 1998. Seasonal 

patterns of chlorophyll, nutrient concentration and Secchi disk transparency in Florida 

lakes. Lake and Res. Manage. 14:60-76 

Brown, C. D., D. E. Canfield, Jr., R. W. Bachmann, and M. V. Hoyer. 1999. Evaluation 

of surface sampling for estimates of chlorophyll, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen 

concentration in shallow Florida lakes. Lake and Res. Manage. 15:121-132. 

Brown, C. D., M. V. Hoyer, R. W. Bachmann, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2000. Nutrientchlorophyll 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2435
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

relationships: an evaluation of empirical nutrient-chlorophyll models using 

Florida and north-temperate lake data. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57:1574-1583. 

Canfield, D.E., Jr. 1983. Impact of integrated aquatic weed management on water quality 

in a citrus grove. Journal Aquatic Plant Management 21:69-73. 

Canfield, D.E., Jr. 1983. Prediction of chlorophyll a concentrations in Florida lakes: the 

importance of phosphorus and nitrogen. Water Resources Bulletin 19:255-262. 

Canfield, D.E., Jr. 1983. Sensitivity of Florida lakes to acidic precipitation. Water 

Resources Research 19:833-839. 

Canfield, D. E., Jr. 2002. Will stringent phosphorus control improve the quality of Lake 

Okeechobee? Aquatics 24 (1): 8-15 

Canfield, D. E. Jr., and R. W. Bachmann. 1981. Prediction of total phosphorus 

concentrations, chlorophyll a, and Secchi depths in natural and artificial lakes. Can. J. 

Fish. Aquat. Sci 38:414-423. 

Canfield, D. E. Jr. and R. W. Bachmann. 2009. Engaging the "Citizen Scientist" in 

environmental research. The Florida LAKEWATCH story. Lakeline 29 (4):23-26 

Canfield, D. E., Jr., R. W. Bachmann, & M. V. Hoyer, 2000. A management alternative 

for Lake Apopka. Lake and Res. Manage. 16:205-221. 

Canfield, Jr., D. E., C. D. Brown, R. W. Bachmann and M. V. Hoyer. 2002. Volunteer 

lake monitoring: Testing the reliability of data collected by the Florida Lakewatch 

Program. Lake and Reservoir Management. 18 (1):1-9. 

Canfield, D.E. Jr., and C.M. Duarte. 1988. Patterns in biomass and cover of aquatic 

macrophytes in lakes: A test with Florida lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 45:1976-1982. 

Canfield, D.E., Jr. and L.M. Hodgson. 1983. Prediction of Secchi disc depths in Florida 

lakes: Impact of algal biomass and organic color. Hydrobiologia 99:51-60 

Canfield, D.E. Jr., and M.V. Hoyer. 1988. The eutrophication of Lake Okeechobee. Lake 

and Reservoir Management 4:91-99. 

Canfield, D.E. Jr., and M.V. Hoyer. 1988. Influence of nutrient enrichment and light 

availability on the abundance of aquatic macrophytes in Florida streams. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:1467-1472. 

Canfield, D.E. Jr., and M.V. Hoyer. 1988. Regional geology and the chemical and trophic 

state characteristics of Florida lakes. Lake and Reservoir Management 4:21-31. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2436
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Canfield, D.E. Jr., K.A. Langeland, S.B. Linda, and W.T. Haller. 1985. Relations 

between water transparency and maximum depth of macrophyte colonization in lakes. 

Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 23:25-28. 

Canfield, D.E., Jr., K.A. Langeland, M.J. Maceina, W.T. Haller, J.V. Shireman, and J.R. 

Jones. 1983. Trophic state classification of lakes with aquatic macrophytes. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:1713-1718. 

Canfield, D.E., Jr., S.B. Linda, and L.M. Hodgson. 1984. Relations between color and 

some limnological characteristics of Florida lakes. Water Resources Bulletin 20:323-329. 

Canfield, D.E., Jr., M.J. Maceina, L.M. Hodgson, and K.A. Langeland. 1983. 

Limnological features of some northwestern Florida lakes. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 

2:67-79. 

Canfield, D.E., Jr., M.J. Maceina, and J.V. Shireman. 1983. Effects of hydrilla and grass 

carp on water quality in a Florida lake. Water Resources Bulletin 19:773-778. 

Canfield, D.E. Jr., E. Phlips, and C.M. Duarte. 1989. Factors influencing the abundance 

of blue-green algae in Florida lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

46:1232-1237. 

Canfield, D.E., Jr., J.V. Shireman, D.E. Colle, W.T. Haller, C.E. Watkins II, and M.J. 

Maceina. 1984. Prediction of chlorophyll a concentrations in lakes: The importance of 

aquatic macrophytes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:497-501. 

Canfield, D.E., Jr. and C.E. Watkins II. 1984. Relationships between zooplankton 

abundance and chlorophyll a concentrations in Florida lakes. Journal of Freshwater 

Ecology 2:335-344. 

Caffrey, A.J., M.V. Hoyer and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2007. Factors affecting the maximum 

depth of colonization by submersed macrophytes in Florida lakes. Lake and Reservoir 

Management 23: 287-297 

Chandler, David C. 1944. Limnological Studies of Western Lake Erie IV. Relation of 

Limnological and Climatic Factors to the Phytoplankton of 1941. Transactions of the 

American Microscopical Society, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Jul., 1944), pp. 203 -236 

Colle, D.E., J.V. Shireman, W.T. Haller, J.C. Joyce, and D.E. Canfield Jr. 1987. 

Influence of hydrilla on angler utilization and monetary expenditure at Orange Lake, 

Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:410-417. 

Duarte, C. M., and D. E. Canfield Jr. 1990. Light absorption in Florida Springs. Florida 

Scientist 53: 118-122. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2437
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Duarte, C., S. Agusti, and D. E. Canfield Jr. 1992. Patterns in phytoplankton community 

structure in Florida lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 37: 155-161. 

Fore, L.S. 2007. Evaluation of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages as indicators of 

lake condition. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Tallahassee, Florida. 

E. E. Gaiser, N. D. Deyrup, R. W. Bachmann, L. E. Battoe, and H. M. Swain. 2009. 

Multidecadal climate oscillations detected in a transparency record from a subtropical 

Florida lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 54:2228-2232. 

Gerritsen, J.B., B.K. Jessup, E. Leppo, and J. White. 2000. Development of lake 

condition indexes (LCI) for Florida. Prepared for the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida. 

Gu, B., and M. V. Hoyer. 2005. Community Structure and environmental conditions in 

shallow lakes dominated by submerged aquatic vegetation. Lake and Reservoir 

Management. 21: 403-410. 

Heiskary, S. A. and C. B. Wilson. 2008. Minnesota’s approach to lake nutrient criteria 

development. Lake and Reservoir Management. 24:282-297. 

Hoyer, Mark V., Roger W. Bachmann and Daniel E. Canfield, Jr. 2008. Lake 

management (muck removal) and hurricane impacts to the trophic state of Lake 

Tohopekaliga, Florida. Lake and Reservoir Management 24:57-68† 

Hoyer, M.V. and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 1986. Surface area of aquatic macrophytes. Aquatics 

8:26-27. 

Hoyer, M. and D. E. Canfield Jr. 1990. Limnological factors influencing bird abundance 

and species richness on Florida lakes. Lake and Reservoir Management 6: 133-142. 

Agusti, S., C. M. 

Hoyer, M. and D. E. Canfield Jr. 1994. Bird abundance and species richness on Florida 

lakes: Influence of trophic status, lake morphology, and aquatic macrophytes. 

Hydrobiologia 297/280:107-119. 

Hoyer, M. V. and D. E. Canfield Jr. 1996 Largemouth bass abundance and aquatic 

vegetation in Florida lakes: An empirical analysis. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 

34:23-32. 

Hoyer, M. V., J. L. Donze, E. J. Schulz, D. J. Willis, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2006. Total 

coliform and Escherichia coli counts in 99 Florida lakes with to some common 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2438
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

limnological factors. Lake and Reservoir Management. 22: 141-150 

Hoyer, M. V., C. D. Brown, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2004. Relation Between water 

chemistry and water quality as defined by lake users in Florida. Lake and Reservoir 

Management. 20: 240-248. 

Hoyer, M. V., T. K. Frazer, S. K. Notestein and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2002. Nutrient, 

chlorophyll, and water clarity relationships in Florida’s nearshore coastal waters with 

comparisons to freshwater lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 

1-8. 

Hoyer, M.V., C.A. Horsburgh, D.E. Canfield, Jr. and R.W. Bachmann. 2005. Lake level 

and trophic state variables among a population of shallow Florida lakes and within 

individual lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: :2760-2769. 

Hoyer, M. V., S. K. Notestein, T. K. Frazer, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2006. Bird density, 

biomass, and species richness on five Florida coastal rivers, with comparisons to Florida 

lakes. Hydrobiologia. 567: 5-18. 

Hoyer, M. V., D. L. Watson, D. J. Willis, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2009. Fish kills in 

Florida’s canals, creeks/rivers, and ponds/lakes. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 

47:53-56. 

Lazzarino, K.L., R. W. Bachmann, M.V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2009. Carbon 

dioxide supersaturation in Florida lakes. Hydrobiologia 627:169-180 

Line, J. M., C. J. F. ter Braak & H. J. B. Birks, 1994. WACALIBversion 3.3 – a computer 

program to reconstruct environment variables from fossil assemblages by weighted 

averaging and to derive sample-specific errors of prediction. J. Paleolim. 10:147–152. 

Moyle, John B. 1945. Some factors Influencing the distribution of aquatic plants, 

Minnesota .American Midland Naturalist, 34 (2):402-420 

Moyle, John B. 1956. Relationships between the Chemistry of Minnesota Surface 

Waters and Wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management, 20 (3 ):303-320 

Naumann, E. 1932. Grundzuge der regionalen Limnologie. Die Binnengewässer. 11:1­

176. 

Riedinger-Whitmore, M., Whitmore, T., Smoak, J., Brenner,M., Moore, A., Curtis, J., et 

al. (2005). Cyanobacterial proliferation is a recent response to eutrophication in many 

Florida lakes: A paleolimnological assessment. Lake and Reservoir Management, 

21:423–435. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2439
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Schultz E. J., M. V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield Jr. 1999. An index of Biotic Integrity: A 

test with limnological and fish data from sixty Florida lakes. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 128: 564-577. 

Shireman, J.V., M.V. Hoyer, M.J. Maceina, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 1985. The water 

quality and fishery of Lake Baldwin, Florida: 4 years after macrophyte removal by grass 

carp. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference and International Symposium of the 

North American Lake Management Society. October 16-19, 1984. McAfee, New Jersey. 

Terrell, Julia B., David L. Watson, Mark V. Hoyer, Michael S. Allen and Daniel E. 

Canfield, Jr. 2000. Temporal water chemistry trends (1967-1997) for a sample (127) of 

Florida waterbodies. Lake and Reservoir Management 16(3):177-194. 

Willis, D. J., D. L. Watson, M. V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2009. Factors related to 

warmouth (Lepomis gulosus) biomass and density in Florida lakes. Florida Scientist. 72: 

218-226. 

Comment ID 1671-2.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from FDEP as an Index of Files Submitted by 

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 on April 28, 2010. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1671-3.001.040 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site link. See 

http://www.fldof.com/forest_management/hydrology_index.html for more information about forestry BMPs. 

The Florida Division of Forestry conducts random assessments of forestry operations throughout the state to determine 

the relative compliance with Forestry Best Management Practices and has documented that compliance rates are 

consistently high (http://www.fldof.com/forest_management/hydrology_index.html). 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2440
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1671-3.001.052 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site. See 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pptpdf/blackwaterdomt1.pdf for more information about Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality assessment of low DO in blackwater streams. 

The FDEP evaluated the decision tree used by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to assess low DO in 

blackwater streams (http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/tmdl/pptpdf/blackwaterdomt1.pdf), and plans to 

develop a similar approach. 

Comment ID 1671-3.001.058 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional information an attachment of a table and several figures including Table 2. 

Summary of diel DO data collected during statewide study from sites with a LDI <2 and a passing SCI score, Figure 18. 

Relationship between deployment average DO concentration and TOC concentration, Figure 19. Relationship between 

average diel DO and color range, Figure 20. Relationship between TN concentration and TOC concentration, Figure 21. 

Relationship between proportion of sensitive taxa in an SCI sample and specific conductance, Figure 22. Relationship 

between SCI and average DO for all regions combined using data averaged by site. Data screened to remove other 

potential influences on SCI scores (i.e., conductivity <250, habitat assessment >110), Figure 23. Relationship between 

SCI and deployment average DO for the Northeast bioregion, Figure 24. Relationship between SCI and deployment 

average DO for the Panhandle bioregion, and Figure 25. Relationship between SCI and deployment average DO for the 

Peninsula bioregion. These figures and table are from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1671-3.001.069 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

Dissolved Oxygen Literature Cited 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2441
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Adams, S. B., M. L. Warren, W. R. Haag. 2004. Spatial and temporal patterns in fish assemblages of upper coastal 

plain streams, Mississippi, USA. Hydrobiologia 528: 45-61. 

Benedetto, L. 1970. Observations on the oxygen needs of some species of European plecoptera. Int. Rev. Ges. 

Hydrobiol., 55:505-510. 

Connolly, N. M., M. R. Crossland, R. G. Pearson. 2004. Effect of low dissolved oxygen on survival, emergence, and drift 

of tropical stream macroinvertebrates. J. North Am. Benth. Soc., 23:2, pp. 251-270. 

Hanshaw. B. B., Back, W., and M. Rubin. 1965. Radiocarbon determinations for estimating ground-water flow velocities 

in central Florida: Science, v. 148, p. 494-495. 

Jacob, U., H. Walther, and R. Klenke. 1984. Aquatic insect larvae as indicators of limiting minimal contents of dissolved 

oxygen. Aquatic Insects, 6: 185-190. 

Johnson Z. B. and J. H. Kennedy. 2003. Macroinvertebrate assemblages of submerged woody debris in the Elm Fork of 

the Trinity River, Texas. J. Freshwater Ecol., 18: 187-197. 

Kapoor, N. N., W. Griffiths. 1975. Oxygen consumption of nymphs of Phasganophora capitata (Pictet) (Plecoptera) with 

respect to body weight and oxygen concentrations. Can. J. Zool., 53: 1089-1092. 

Kaller, M. D. and W. E. Kelso. 2007. Association of macroinvertebrate assemblages with dissolved oxygen 

concentration and wood surface area in selected subtropical streams of the southeastern USA. Aquat. Ecol. 41: 95-110. 

Landman, M. J., M. R. Van Den Heuvel, N. Ling. 2005. Relative sensitivities of common freshwater fish and 

invertebrates to acute hypoxia. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 39: 1061-1067. 

Scott, T. M., G. H. Means, R. P. Meegan, R. C. Means, S. B. Upchurch, R. E. Copeland, J. Jones, T. Roberts, and A. 

Willet. 2004. SPRINGS OF FLORIDA. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin No. 66. 

Surber, E. W. and W. E. Bessey. 1974. Minimum oxygen Levels Survived by Stream Invertebrates. VPI-WRRC-BULL 

81. Virginia Water Resources Research Center. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 

USEPA. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen. EPA 440/5-86-003. 

Williams, L. R., T. H. Bonner, J. D. Hudson, M. G. Williams, T. R. Leavy, and C. S. Williams. 2005. Interactive effects of 

environmental variability and military training on stream biota of three headwater drainages in western Louisiana. Trans. 

Am. Fish. Soc., 134: 192-206. 

Comment ID 1671-3.001.071 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2442
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Orignal comment letter contains additional information in its reference list.
 

Bacteria Literature Cited
 

Hanes, V. N., G. A. Delaney, and C. J. O'Leary. 1965. Relationship between Escherichia coli, Type I, coliform and
 

enterococci in water. J. Boston Soc. Eng. 52:129-140.
 

Hardin, C.M. and R. S. Fujoika. 1991. Soil: The environmental source of Escherica coli and Enterocooci in Hawaii's
 

streams. Env. Tox. And Wat Qual 6: 185-195.
 

Hendricks, C. W. 1971. Enteric bacterial metabolism of stream sediment eluates. Can. J. Microbiol. 17:551-556.
 

Nieman, J and G, M. Biron. 2001. Novel bacterial ratio for predicting faecal age.
 

Mc Swain, M. R. and W. T. Swank. 1974. Fluctuations in naturally occurring populations of enteric bacteria in
 

oligotrophic streams of western North Carolina. Contribution No. 223 from the Eastern Deciduous Forest Biome, USIBP. 12 pp. 

Comment ID 1673-1.001.017 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information from the Federal Register. 

(ii) Criteria for protection of downstream lakes. (A) The applicable total phosphorus criterion-magnitude for a stream that 

flows into downstream lakes is the more stringent of the value from the preceding table in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this 

section or a downstream lake protection value derived from the following equation to protect the downstream lake: 

Original comment contains additional information in a description of equation terms. See original comment letter. 

where: [TP]s is the total phosphorus (TP) downstream lake protection value, mg/L [TP]L is applicable TP lake criterion, 

mg/L cf is the fraction of inflow due to all streamflow, 0 cf 1 tw is lake's hydraulic retention time (water volume divided 

by annual flow rate) The term (1+ w) expresses the net phosphorus loss from the water column (e.g., via settling of 

sedimentsorbed phosphorus) as a function of the lake's retention time. 

Comment ID 1673-2.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2443
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 1688-2.001.012 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its list of Referenced Files. 

Referenced Files 

The following files are submitted by FDEP as part of the record. 

1. Friends of the Everglades v EPA Case No 01-16482 (11th Cir July 19 2002) (Affirming Seitz opinion and approving 

12 year statutory compliance schedule) 

2. Friends of the Everglades v EPA Case No 00-935 (SD Fla Oct 18 2001 -Seitz Opinion) 

Comment ID 1688-3.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2444
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Friends of the Everglades vs. US EPA 

Court Documents. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1688-4.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Friends of the Everglades vs. US EPA 

Court Documents. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1689-1.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Technical Advisory Committee, Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria Meeting Notes, Volume 1, Public Meeting. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1689-2.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Technical Advisory Committee, Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria Meeting Notes, Volume 2, Public Meeting. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1689-3.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a table of assessment information by WBID 

in Florida from Florida FDEP. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1689-4.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2445
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY BMPs FOR 

FLORIDA CONTAINER NURSERIES by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of 

Agricultural Water Policy. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1689-5.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY BMPs FOR 

FLORIDA CALF/COW OPERATIONS prepared by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of 

Agricultural Water Policy. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1689-6.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY BMPs FOR 

FLORIDA SOD by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Agricultural Water Policy. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1690-1.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Water Quality/Quantity BMPs for Indian 

River Area Citrus Groves – 2000 prepared by the Indian River Citrus League. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1690-1.001.002 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2446
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Water Quality/Quantity BMPs for Indian 

River Area Citrus Groves – 2005. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1691-1.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Best Management Practices for Citrus 

Groves in the Peace River and Manasota Basins - July 2004 prepared for Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1691-2.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of NITROGEN BEST MANAGEMENT 

PRACTICES (BMPs) FOR FLORIDA RIDGE CITRUS - July 2002. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1691-3.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of WATER QUALITY/QUANTITY BEST 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FLORIDA VEGETABLES AND AGRONOMIC CROPS – 2005 prepared by Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1691-4.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map of Agricultural BMP enrollment in 

Florida – Producers Implementing FDACS OAWP BMPs, by Parcel by the Office of Agriculture Water Policy. See 

original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2447
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1691-5.001.001 

Author Name: Brooks J. 

Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map of Agricultural BMP enrollment in 

Florida – Producers Implementing FDACS OAWP BMPs, by Parcel by the Office of Agriculture Water Policy. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1693-4.001.001 

Author Name: Barker V. 

Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 3.1 Brevard County freshwater 

WBIDs impaired for nutrients based on proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Rule. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1694-1.001.013 

Author Name: Buss J. 

Organization: City of Tallahassee 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment 2 Level III and IV Ecoregions of 

Florida. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1715-2.001.001 

Author Name: Wilson C. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of The “Joint Submittal” to The Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Administrative Record; EPA DOCKET ID NO.: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 Regarding the 

Proposed Rule on Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 40 CFR Part 131.43, 

Publicly Noticed on January 26, 2010 By: The Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District, The 

Florida Sugar Cane League, United States Sugar Corporation, New Hope Sugar Company, and Okeelanta Corporation. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1715-3.001.075 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2448
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Wilson C.
 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District
 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

American Public health Assoc. et al. 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st ed., 

1368pp. 

Azurea, Inc. 2007. Relationships between Water Column Nutrients and Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in the Reedy 

Creek Drainage Basin, Central Florida, 

Bachmann, R. W., B. L. Jones, D. D. Fox, M. V. Hoyer, L. A. Bull, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 1996. Relationships between 

trophic state indicators and fish in Florida (USA) lakes. Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci 53: 842-855. 

Baker, L. A., P. L. Brezonik and C. R. Kratzer. 1981. Nutrient loading - Trophic state relationships in Florida lakes. Publ. 

No. 56,Water Resources Research Center,, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 126 p. 

Bottcher, A.B., and F.T. Izuno, 1994. Everglades Agricultural Area EAA, Water, Soil, Crop and Environmental 

Management. 

Brezonik, P.L. and C.D. Pollman. 1999. Phosphorus chemistry and cycling in Florida lakes: global issues and local 

perspectives, pp. 69-109 in: Phosphorus Biogeochemistry in Subtropical Ecosystems, K. Reddy et al. (Eds.), Lewis 

Publ., Boca Raton, FL. 

Broward County Water Quality Department of Environmental Protection. 2001. Water Quality in your Community 1972­

1997 - A resident's guide to Canal water Quality in Broward County. Broward County, FL. 

Canfield, D.E., Jr. and R.W. Bachmann. 1981. Prediction of total phosphorus concentrations, chlorophyll a and Secchi 

depths in natural and artificial lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 38(4):414-423. 

Carlson, R. E. 1977. A Trophic State Index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 22(2): 361-369. 

CH2M-Hill, 1978 and 1979. Water Quality Studies in the EAA of Florida Phase II and III Reports submitted to the Florida 

Sugar Cane League, Clewiston. 

Chapra, S.C. (2009) SAB Review of Nutrient Criteria Guidance. Letter to Dr. Thomas Armitage, USEPA September 3, 

2009. Copy available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/SABPRODUCT.NSF/8DA1A51FF19978AA85257 

627006C517B/$File/Comments+from+Steven+C.+Chapra-09-07-09.pdf 

DB Environmental, Inc. 2008. An Analysis of Factors that Influence STA Outflow Phosphorus Concentrations. Analysis 

of STA Phosphorus Load and Concentration Relationships. Rockledge, FL January 2008, 22 pp. 

DB Environmental, Inc. 2009. Characteristics of Macroinvertebrate Populations in South Florida Canals. Prepared for 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2449
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

the Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District. 

DB Environmental, Inc. 2010. An Assessment of USEPA's Proposed Nutrient Criteria and Chlorophyll Thresholds for 

South Florida Canals. Thomas A. DeBusk, Rockledge, Florida. April 26, 2010, 82 pp.. 

DB Environmental, Inc. and Azurea, Inc. 2007. Relationships between Water Column Nutrients and Macroinvertebrate 

Assemblages in the Reedy Creek Drainage Basin, Central Florida. Technical Report to the Everglades Agricultural Area 

Environmental Protection District. 

Diaz, O.A, S.H. Daroub, J.D. Stuck, M.W. Clark, T.A. Lang, and K.R. Reddy. 2006. Sediment inventory and phosphorus 

fractions for Water Conservation Area canals in the Everglades. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70:863-871. 

Dilks, D.D. 2010. Affidavit of David Wayne Dilks. Submitted as supporting documentation to comments provide to 

USEPA, 

ERG (Eastern Research Group), Inc. 2009. External Peer Review of EPA's "Proposed Methods and Approaches for 

Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Waters" EPA Contract No. EP-C-07-059 August 11, 2009. 56 

pp 

Federico, A., T. DeBusk, W. DeBusk, M. Fisher, K. A. Grace, V. J. Bierman, Jr., and J. VanArman. 2008. "Comments 

on Proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients in the Everglades (WBIDs 3252A, 

3252B, 3252C, 3260, 3263, 3265B) Hendry, Broward, Palm Beach and Dade Counties, Florida, By the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency Dated September 2007" Submitted on Behalf of the Everglades Agricultural Area 

Environmental Protection District, January 30, 2008. 

Flaig, E.G. and, K.R. Reddy, 1995. Fate of phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee watershed, Florida, USA: overview and 

recommendations. Ecological Engineering, V. 5, P. 127-142 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2001. An investigation of canals in southwest Florida: 

Relationships between biological health, water quality, and habitat. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Benchmark IPV Evaluation 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP). 2010. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of 

Streams and Springs/Clear Streams, Proposed January 26, 2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency, Division of 

Environmental Assessment and Restoration, March 12, 2010. 

Fore, L. S., R. Frydenborg, D. Miller, T. Frick, D. Whiting, J. Espy, L. Wolfe. 2007b. Development and testing of 

biomonitoring tools for macroinvertebrates in Florida streams (Stream Condition Index and Biorecon). Final Report 

prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL. 

Fore, R. Frydenborg, N. Wellendorf, J. Espy, T. Frick, D. Whiting, J. Jackson, and J. Patronis. 2007a. Assessing the 

Biological Condition of Florida Lakes:Development of the Lake Vegetation Index (LVI) Final Report prepared for Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2450
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Heiskary, S.A., and W.W. Walker, Jr. 1988. Developing phosphorus criteria for Minnesota lakes. Lake and Reservoir 

Management 4(1):1-9. 

InfoTech. 2010. Critique of EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for South Florida Canals. Report attached to 

Affidavits of James T. McClave and Cynthia Hewitt. 

Izuno, F. 2010. The Everglades Agricultural Area: A unique geographic region of south Florida. Affidavit of F. Izuno. 

Submitted as supporting documentation to comments provide to USEPA, 

Juston, J. and T. A. DeBusk 2006. Phosphorus mass load and outflow concentration relationships in stormwater 

treatment areas for Everglades restoration. Ecological Engineering 26: 206-223. 

Knight R. L., Binhe Gu, Ronald A. Clarke, Jana M. Newman. 2003. Long-term phosphorus removal in Florida aquatic 

systems dominated by submerged aquatic vegetation. Ecological Engineering 20 (2003) 45-63. 

Kushlan 1974, Kushlan, J. A. 1974. Effects of a natural fish kill on the water quality, plankton, and fish populations of a 

pond in the Big Cypress Swamp, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 103:235-243. 

Maceina, M. J., and D. R. Bayne. 2001. Changes in the black bass community and fishery with oligotrophication in West 

Point Reservoir, Georgia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21: 745-755. 

Nelson, C. M. and W. F. Loftus. 1996. Fish communities of alligator ponds in the high water periods of 1983-1985 and 

1994-1996. p. 89-101. In T. V. Armentano (ed.) Proceedings of the conference: ecological assessment of the 1994­

1995 high water conditions in the Southern Everglades. South Florida Management and Coordination Working Group, 

West Palm Beach, FL, USA. 

Ney, J. J. 1996. Oligotrophication and its discontents: Effects of reduced nutrient loading on reservoir fisheries. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium 16: 285-295. 

Parker, N. 1989, ‘Spatial Simulation of Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loading in the St. Marks Basin Using a GIS Model', in 

M.T. Brown, N. Parker and A. Foley (eds), 1998, Spatial Modeling of Landscape Development Intensity and Water 

Quality in the St. Marks River Watershed, DEP Contract #GW138, Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, 

Gainesville, 136 pp 

Pietro, K., G. Germain, R. Bearzotti, and N. Iricanin. 2010. Chapter 5: Performance and optimization of the Everglades 

stormwater treatment areas. 2010 South Florida Environmental Report. South Florida Water Management District. West 

Palm Beach, Florida. 

Reddy, K.R., Y. Wang, W.F. DeBusk, M.M. Fisher, and S. Newman. 1998. Forms of soil phosphorus in selected 

hydrologic units of the Florida Everglades. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62:1134-1147. 

Rehage, J. S., and J. C. Trexler. 2006. Assessing the net effect of anthropogenic disturbance on aquatic communities in 

wetlands: community structure relative to distance from canals Hydrobiologia 569: 359-373. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2451
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Richardson, C. J., R. S. King, S. S. Qian, P. Vaithiyanathan, R. G. Qualls, and C. A. Stow. 2007. Estimating ecological 

thresholds for phosphorus in the Everglades. Environmental Science and Technology 41: 8084-8091. 

Science Advisory Board 2010. SAB Review of Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, Draft 

Advisory Report Washington, D.C. 68 pp. January 8, 2010 Draft report. 

Shafland, P. L., K. B. Gestring, and M. S. Stanford. 2001a. Fourth annual progress report for metropolitan southeast 

Florida canal fisheries and recently introduced exotic fishes 2000-2001. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission. Boca Raton, FL. 

Shafland, P. L., K. B. Gestring, and M. S. Stanford. 2001b. The Fisheries of the Metropolitan Southeast Florida Canals 

with Special Reference to Exotic Fishes, submitted as part of the Third annual progress report: southeast Florida canal 

sportfishery studies 1997-2000. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Boca Raton, FL. 

Shannon, E.E. and Patrick L. Brezonik,2010. Comments and Technical Concerns Regarding U.S. EPA's Proposed 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for The State Of Florida's Lakes Aad Flowing Waters. Prepared for: The Everglades 

Agricultural Area (EAA) Environmental Protection District (EPD). Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Waterloo, Ontario 

Canada REF. NO. 8019841 (1) APRIL 2010 36 pp. 

Snyder, B. D., M. T. Barbour, E. W. Leppo. 1998. Development of a watershed-based approach for biomonitoring of 

fresh surface waters in Southern Florida canals system. Prepared for Miami-Dade Environmental Resources 

Management Miami, FL. 

Steward and Lowe (2010), Steward, Joel S. and Edgar F. Lowe, 2010. General Empirical Models for Estimating Load 

Limits for Florida Estuaries and Inland Waters. Limnol, Oceanagr. 55(1) A33-445. 

Stockner, J. G., E. Rydin, and P Hyenstrand. 2000. Cultural Oligotrophication: Causes and consequences for fisheries 

resources. Fisheries 25(5): 7-14. 

Trexler, J. C., W. F. Loftus, and S. Perry. 2005. Disturbance frequency and community structure in a twenty-five year 

intervention study. Oecologia 145: 140-152. 

USEPA 1985. Stephen, Charles E., D. I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J. H. Gentile, G. A. Chapman, and W. A. Brungs, 

Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their 

Uses, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development 

USEPA, 1998 National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, June 1998 

USEPA, 2000. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual Rivers and Streams. Office of Water. Washington, DC. 

EPA-822-B-00-002 

USEPA, 2000. Technical Guidance Manual for Nutrient Criteria in Rivers and Streams. Office of Water. Washington, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2452
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

DC. EPA-822-B-00-002. (July, 2000) 

USEPA, 2007a. Proposed TMDL for Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients in the Everglades (WBIDs 3252A, 3252B, 3252C, 

3260, 3263, 3265B), Hendry, Broward, Palm Beach, and Dade Counties, Florida. US EPA Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. 

September, 2007 

USEPA, 2007b EPA Memorandum, Nutrient Pollution and Numeric Water Quality Standards, prepared by Benjamin H. 

Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, of the US Environmental Protection Agency, May 25, 2007 

USEPA, 2009. "Empirical Approaches for Numeric Criteria Derivation", SAB Review Draft., 81 pp, August 17, 2009. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. 

USEPA, 2010a. Technical Support Document for EPA's proposed rule for numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's Inland 

Surface Fresh Waters. Washington, DC. 

USEPA, 2010b. Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. 40 CFR Part 131. [EPAHQ-OW-2009-0596]. Washington, DC. 

Vollenweider, R.A. 1975. Input-Output Models with Special Reference to the Phosphorus Loading Concept in 

Limnology. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Hydrologie 37:53-84. 

Vollenweider, R.A. 1976. Advances in Defining Critical Loading Levels for Phosphorus in Lake Eutrophication. Memorie 

dell'Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia 33:53-83. 

Comment ID 1715-3.001.076 

Author Name: Wilson C. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its list of abbreviations. 

List of Abbreviations 

BMP - best management plan 

BOD - biological oxygen demand 

Chl a - chlorophyll a 

CWA - Clean Water Act 

DERM - Department of Environmental 

Resource Management 

DO - dissolved oxygen 

DPV- downstream protective values 

EAA - Everglades Agricultural Area 

EPA or EvPA - Everglades Protection 

Area 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2453
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

EPD - Everglades Protection District 

FDACs - Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services 

FDEP - Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

FWC - Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

IPV - instream protective values 

IWR - Impaired Waters Rule 

LDI - land development index 

LOPA - Lake Okeechobee Protection Act 

MDL - minimum detection limit 

ug/L - micrograms per liter 

mg/L - milligrams per liter 

msl - mean sea level 

N - nitrogen 

NEEPP- Northern Everglades and 

Estuaries Protection Plan 

NELAC - National Environmental 

Laboratory Accreditation Conference 

NNC - numeric nutrient criteria 

P - phosphorus 

ppb - parts per billion 

ppm - parts per million 

QA/QC - quality assurance/ quality control 

SAB - Science Advisory Board 

SCI - stream condition index 

SFWMD - South Florida Water 

Management District 

SOD - sediment oxygen demand 

SSAC - Site-Specific Alternative Criteria 

TMDL -Total Maximum Daily Load 

TN, Tot N - total nitrogen 

TP, Tot P - total phosphorus 

TSD - technical support document 

TSI - trophic state index 

USEPA - United States Environmental 

Protection Agency 

WBID - water body identification (number) 

WCA - Water Conservation Area 

Comment ID 1715-4.001.001
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2454
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Wilson C. 

Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 1725-1.001.012 

Author Name: Nyhus S. 

Organization: Flaherty & Hood, P.A. on behalf of Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the SAB Comments Regarding EPA's 

Latest Guidance Pertaining to the Development of Nutreint Standards in Appendix B. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1725-1.001.013 

Author Name: Nyhus S. 

Organization: Flaherty & Hood, P.A. on behalf of Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the National Guidelines' Principles 

Governing Criteria Derivation in Appendix C. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1731-1.001.005 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2455
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Gibson T.
 

Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg
 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site. See http://www.stpete.org/green/index.asp 

for more information on other City initiatives in St. Petersburg. 

Refer to our green city website (http://www.stpete.org/green/index.asp) for other City initiatives we have committed to. 

Comment ID 1731-1.001.008 

Author Name: Gibson T.
 

Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg
 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site. See http://www.stpete.org/water/reclaimed 

water/index.asp for more information about reclaimed water reuse in St. Petersburg. 

Our Water Resources' website contains more details on reclaimed water reuse: http://www.stpete.org/water/reclaimed 

water/index.asp. 

Comment ID 1758.001.001 

Author Name: Cooper J. 

Organization: Protect Our Watersheds 

Original comment letter contains additional information in maps on pages 7 and 8 of the pdf of a permit application for a 

phosphate mine for Mosaic, LLC from EPA Region 4. Supplemental attachments to document OW-2009-0596-1086. 

The map on page 8 is the best online copy. A clearer, hard copy of the map is available at the EPA Docket Center in 

Washington, DC. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1758.001.003 

Author Name: Cooper J. 

Organization: Protect Our Watersheds 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter to Colonel Pantano from Thomas 

Welborn, Chief of Wetlands, Coastal and Oceans Branch regarding Mosaic Fertilizer. Supplemental attachments to 

document OW-2009-0596-1086. See pages 1-6 of the original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2456
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1761-2.001.001 

Author Name: Merrill M. 

Organization: Hillsborough County 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the cover page of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Flowing Waters written by Applied 

Technology and Management, Inc. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1761-3.001.155 

Author Name: Merrill M. 

Organization: Hillsborough County 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

REFERENCES 

Applied Technology and Management, Inc. (ATM). 2010. Refinement to Proposed TMDLs for Dissolved Oxygen and 

Nutrients, Baker Creek, Mill Creek, and Spartman Branch. Submitted to Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP). 

Canfield, J., Horsburgh, C., Omernik, J., & Azevedo, S. (2007). Lake Regions of Florida. Map Prepared by the USEPA. 

Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/wed/ pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm 

Carlson, R. (1977). A Trophic State Index for Lakes. 22, 361-369. 

Carlson, R., & Simpson, J. (1996). A Coordinator's Guide to Volunteer Lake Monitoring Methods. North American Lake 

Management Society. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009a. DRAFT Technical Support Document: Development of 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Lakes and Streams. Standards and Assessments Section. Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009b. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Review of SPARROW: How useful is it for the purposes of supporting water quality standards development? Located in 

EPA's docket Id No. EPAHQ- OW-2009-0596. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010a. Personal communication with Charles Kovach. Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (2010b). Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Lakes. 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2457
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010c. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of 

Streams and Springs/Clear Streams. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010d. Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection 

Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters published January 26, 2010. 

February 10, 2010. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Lakewatch. (2004). A Beginner's Guide to Water Management - Color, January 2004. University of Florida, 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Gainesville, Florida: Florida Lakewatch. Department of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences. 

Florida Lakewatch (2007). Fish Communities and Trophic State in Florida Lakes, April 2007 [Report] : Information 

Circular #110 / Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; University of Florida. - Gainesville, Florida : Florida 

Lakewatch. Department of Fisheries adn Aquatic Sciences, 2007. 

Hoos, A.B., and G. McMahon. 2009. Spatial analysis of instream nitrogen loads and factors controlling nitrogen delivery 

to streams in the southeastern United States using spatially referenced regression on watershed attributes 

(SPARROW) and regional classification frameworks. Hydrol. Processes. Published online in Wiley InterScience. DOI: 

10.1002/hyp.7323. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 

Huber, W. C., Bresonik, P. L., Heaney, J. P., Dickinson, R. E., Preston, S. D., Dwornik, D. S., et al. (1982). A 

Classification of Lakes. University of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, Gainesville. 

Line, J., ter Braak, C. T., & Birks, H. (1994). WACALIB Version 3.3 - A Computer Program to Reconstruct 

Environmental Variables from Fossil Assemblages by Weighted Averaging and to Derive Sample-Specific Errors of 

Prediction. Journal of Paleolimnology , 10, 147-152. 

Salas, H. J., & Martino, P. (1991). A Simplifed Phosphorus Trophic State Model for Warm-Water Tropical Lakes . Water 

Research , 25, 341-350. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009). Florida's Inland Waters, Chapter 1. US Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 131 (EPA-HQOW-2009-0596; FRL-XXXX-X) (RIN 2040-AF11) Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing 

Waters. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA's Proposed Rule for 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh Waters. 

Whitmore, T., & Brenner, M. (2002). Paleologic Characterization of Pre-Disturbance Water Quality Conditions in EPA 

Defined Florida Lake Regions. University of Florida, Department Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2458
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.067 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of EXHIBIT "D" TO CITY OF COCOA'S 4-28­

10 COMMENT LETTER in a document titled "Lake Regions of Florida," written and prepared by USEPA in 1997, 

EPA/R-97/127. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.068 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Exhibit A to City of Cocoa Comment Letter 

Dated 4-28-10 of an Excel Spreadsheet of assessment data in Florida by WBID. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.069 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Exhibit B to City of Cocoa Comment Letter 

Dated 4-28-10 of a map showing impaired WBIDs and the city of Cocoa boundary. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.070 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Exhibit C to City of Cocoa Comment Letter 

Dated 4-28-10 of a map showing the City of Cocoa reuse service area. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1769-1.001.071 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2459
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the City of Cocoa’s Exhibits list. See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.014 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the City of Plant City’s Exhibits and Appedix 

list. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1770-1.001.017 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the City of Plant City’s Exhibit B, a map of 

proposed EPA impaired WBIDs. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.018 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of EXHIBIT "C" TO SEMINOLE COUNTY'S 4­

28-10 COMMENT LETTER of a map of WBIDs in Seminole County. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.019 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Exhibit E, a map of utilities service area in 

Seminole County. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.021 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2460
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the exhibit list of what is attached to the 

original comment letter. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.023 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment Exhibit B, a list of Seminole County freshwater 

WBIDs impaired for nutrients. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.024 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment Exhibit D, a list of Seminole County utilities 

freshwater WBIDs impaired for nutrients. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1771-1.001.026 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment Exhibit G, a list memo from Reiss Engineering 

to Seminole County concerning the EPA proposed numeric nutrient criteria. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.015 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an exhibit list. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2461
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.017 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Exhibit D, annual averages for the Osprey 

plant, Blue Heron Plant, and wetlands influent and effluent. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1772-1.001.019 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Exhibit B, a map of proposed EPA impaired 

WBIDs for the City of Titusville. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.017 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an Exhibit list. See original comment letter 

List. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.019 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Exhibit B, a table of Orlando Utilities 

Commission freshwater WBIDs impaired for nutrients based on proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria Rule. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.020 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2462
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Exhibit C, a Map showing OUC service area 

and reclaimed are WBIDs. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1773-1.001.022 

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.
 

Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Exhibit E, OUC’s potable water test results. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1777-2.001.058 

Author Name: Blanchard B.
 

Organization: Florida Department of Transportation
 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site. See http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/cgibin/reports/search.asp for more information about FDEP’s TMDL audit reports. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2463
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1777-2.001.137 

Author Name: Blanchard B. 

Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

REFERENCES 

Applied Technology and Management, Inc. (ATM). 2010. Refinement to Proposed TMDLs for Dissolved Oxygen and 

Nutrients, Baker Creek, Mill Creek, and Spartman Branch. Submitted to Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP). 

Canfield, J., Horsburgh, C., Omernik, J., & Azevedo, S. (2007). Lake Regions of Florida. Map Prepared by the USEPA. 

Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/wed/ pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm 

Carlson, R. (1977). A Trophic State Index for Lakes. 22, 361-369. 

Carlson, R., & Simpson, J. (1996). A Coordinator's Guide to Volunteer Lake Monitoring Methods. North American Lake 

Management Society. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009a. DRAFT Technical Support Document: Development of 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Lakes and Streams. Standards and Assessments Section. Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009b. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Review of SPARROW: How useful is it for the purposes of supporting water quality standards development? Located in 

EPA's docket Id No. EPAHQ-OW-2009-0596. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010a. Personal communication with Charles Kovach. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (2010b). Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of 

Lakes. Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010c. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of 

Streams and Springs/Clear Streams. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010d. Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection 

Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters published January 26, 2010. 

February 10, 2010. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Lakewatch. (2004). A Beginner's Guide to Water Management - Color, January 2004. University of Florida, 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Gainesville, Florida: Florida Lakewatch. Department of Fisheries and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2464
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Aquatic Sciences. 

Florida Lakewatch (2007). Fish Communities and Trophic State in Florida Lakes, April 2007 [Report] : Information 

Circular #110 / Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; University of Florida. - Gainesville, Florida : Florida 

Lakewatch. Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2007. 

Hoos, A.B., and G. McMahon. 2009. Spatial analysis of instream nitrogen loads and factors controlling nitrogen delivery 

to streams in the southeastern United States using spatially referenced regression on watershed attributes 

(SPARROW) and regional classification frameworks. Hydrol. Processes. Published online in Wiley InterScience. DOI: 

10.1002/hyp.7323. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 

Huber, W. C., Bresonik, P. L., Heaney, J. P., Dickinson, R. E., Preston, S. D., Dwornik, D. S., et al. (1982). A 

Classification of Lakes. University of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, Gainesville. 

Line, J., ter Braak, C. T., & Birks, H. (1994). WACALIB Version 3.3 - A Computer Program to Reconstruct 

Environmental Variables from Fossil Assemblages by Weighted Averaging and to Derive Sample-Specific Errors of 

Prediction. Journal of Paleolimnology , 10, 147-152. 

Salas, H. J., & Martino, P. (1991). A Simplifed Phosphorus Trophic State Model for Warm-Water Tropical Lakes . Water 

Research , 25, 341-350. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009). Florida's Inland Waters, Chapter 1. US Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 131 (EPA-HQOW-2009-0596; FRL-XXXX-X) (RIN 2040-AF11) Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing 

Waters. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA's Proposed Rule for 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh Waters. 

Vollenweider, R. (1976). Advances in Defining Critical Loading Levels for Phosphorus in Lake Eutrophication. Mem. Ist. 

Ital. Idrobiol. 33, 53-83. 

Vollenweider, R. (1975). Input-Output Models with Special Reference to the Phosphorus Loading Concept in Limnology. 

Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Hydrologie, 37, 53-84. 

Whitmore, T., & Brenner, M. (2002). Paleologic Characterization of Pre-Disturbance Water Quality Conditions in EPA 

Defined Florida Lake Regions. University of Florida, Department Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

Comment ID 1777-2.001.163 

Author Name: Blanchard B. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2465
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 

Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve 

ATM Applied Technology and Management 

BASINS Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources 

BCG Biological Condition Gradient 

BMAP Basin Management Action Plan 

CART Classification and Regression Tree 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DPV Downstream Protection Value 

EAA Everglades Agricultural Area 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

FAC Florida Administrative Code 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

HDG Human Disturbance Gradient 

HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran 

IFAS Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (University of Florida) 

IPV Instream Protection Value 

IWR Impaired Waters Rule 

LDI Land Disturbance Indicator 

LOESS Locally Weighted Scatterplot Smoothing 

MEI Morphoedaphic Index 

mg/l milligrams per liter 

NEEA National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment 

NMC Nitrogen Management Consortium 

NNC Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

NODA Notice of Data Availability 

NWR Nutrient Watershed Region 

OFW Outstanding Florida Waters 

PCU Platinum-Cobalt Unit 

PLRG Pollutant Load Reduction Goals 

PQL Practical Quantification Limit 

RPS Rapid Periphyton Survey 

SAGT South Atlantic-Gulf Tennessee Region 

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

SCI Stream Condition Index 

SOD Sediment Oxygen Demand 

SPARROW Spatially Referenced Regressions on Watershed Attributes 

SSAC Site Specific Alternative Criteria 

STA Stormwater Treatment Area 

STORET STOrage and RETrieval (centralized water quality database) 

TAC Technical Advisory Committee 

TALU Tiered Aquatic Life Uses 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2466
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TN Total Nitrogen 

TP Total Phosphorus 

TSD Technical Support Document 

TSI Trophic State Index 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WACALIB Weighted Averaging Regression and Calibration 

WASP Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program 

WBID Water Body Identification Number 

WQBEL Water Quality Based Effluent Limits 

WQS Water Quality Standard 

ug/l micrograms per liter 

uS/cm microSiemens per centimeter 

Comment ID 1778-1.001.019 

Author Name: Arrington D. 

Organization: Loxahatchee River District 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

CITATIONS 

Arrington, D. A., and R. C. Dent. 2008. Maintenance of groundwater quality throughout twenty years of reuse. Water 

Practice 2:1-10. 

McKim, T., J. A. Jackson, C. Ferraro, and A. Arrington. 2009. Optimizing Reuse: Lessons from the Roundtable. Florida 

Water Resources Journal 61:16-18. 

Orem, W., P. W. Swarzenski, B. F. McPherson, M. Hedgepath, H. E. Lerch, C. Reich, A. E. Torres, M. D. Corum, and 

R. E. Roberts. 2007. Assessment of Groundwater Input and Water Quality Changes Impacting Natural Vegetation in the 

Loxahatchee River and Floodplain Ecosystem, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1304. 

Riddler, M. S., R. C. Dent, and D. A. Arrington. 2006. Effects of two hurricanes on Syringodium filiforme, manatee 

grass, within the Loxahatchee River estuary, Southeast Florida. Estuaries and Coasts 29:1019-1025. 

SFWMD. 2006. Restoration Plan for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River. South Florida Water Management 

District, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Stanley, E., D. A. Arrington, R. C. Dent, D. G. Burden, and R. B. Taylor. 2009. Preserving the environment by 

increasing reuse supplies: blending nanofiltration concentrate & treated effluent. Florida Water Resources Journal 

61:52-59. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2467
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1782-2.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.013 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

Original comment letter contains additional information as a reference to Florida TMDLs. See original comment letter for 

more information. 

The 2007 Orange Creek Basin Management Action Plan for the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads adopted 

by the Florida Department of Protection for Newnans Lake, Orange Lake, Lake Wauberg, Hogtown Creek, Sweetwater 

Branch, Tumblin Creek, and Alachua Sink contains significantly more detail concerning environmentally beneficial 

projects to protect and improve water quality in the Orange Creek Basin (See Appendix B: Orange Creek Basin 

Management Action Plan dated May 8th, 2008). 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2468
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 1784-1.001.040 

Author Name: Cunningham T. 

Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Appendicies A-F. See original comment 

letter. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.067 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list 

REFERENCES 

HydroQual, 2000. Review of Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. 

Science Advisory Board, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, 2010. Advisory Report - For Quality Review. 

January 8, 2010. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System - Supplementary 

Information Document. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations - Information 

Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria Lakes and Reservoirs in Nutrient Ecoregion XII. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001. Memorandum from Geoffrey Grubbs, Director, Office of Science and 

Technology to Water Directors, Regions I-X, et. al. Development and Adoption of Nutrient Criteria into Water Quality 

Standards. November 14, 2001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water, to 

Michael Sole, Secretary, FDEP, January 14, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits 

Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida. January 2010. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.069 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2469
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Appendix 1, Review of Nutrient Criteria 

Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1786-1.001.070 

Author Name: Kirk K. 

Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in Appendix 2, Info Tech Critique of EPA's 

Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Streams. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1791-1.001.002 

Author Name: Knight R. 

Organization: Wetland Solutions, Inc. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list 

Knight, R.L. and S. Notestein. 2008. Chapter 1: Springs as Ecosystems and Chapter 6: Effects of Nutrients on Spring 

Ecosystems. In: M.T. Brown et. al. Summary and Synthesis of the Available Literature on the Effects of Nutrients on 

Spring Organisms and Systems. April 2008. Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences. University of Florida. 

Gainesville, FL. 

Munch, D.A., D.J. Toth, C. Huang, J.B. Davis, C.M. Fortich, W.L. Osburn, E.J. Phlips, E.L. Quinlan, M.S. Allen, M.J. 

Woods, P. Cooney, R.L. Knight, R.A Clarke, and S.L. Knight. 2006. Fifty-year retrospective study of the ecology of 

Silver Springs, Florida. Report prepared for the Department of Environmental Protection, Special Publication SJ2007­

SP4. Palatka: St. Johns River Water Management District. 314 pp. From: 

http://www.sjrwmd.com/technicalreports/pdfs/SP/SJ2007-SP4.pdf 

Odum, E.P., J.T. Finn, and E.H. Franz. 1979. Perturbation theory and the subsidy-stress gradient. BioScience 29: 349­

352.; accessed December 2007. 

Wetland Solutions, Inc (WSI). 2007. Phase 3 Final Report. Pollutant Load Reduction Goal (PLRG) Analysis for the 

Wekiva River and Rock Springs Run, Florida. Report prepared for the St. Johns River Water Management District, 

Palatka, FL. 418 pp. 

Wetland Solutions, Inc. (WSI). 2010. An Ecosystem-Level Study of Florida's Springs. Final Report. February 2010. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2470
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Prepared for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. FWC Project Agreement No. 

08010. 213. pp. 

Comment ID 1794-1.001.026 

Author Name: Taylor W. 

Organization: US Department of the Interior 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list 

References: 

Brand, L.E., 1988. Assessment of plankton resources and their environmental interaction in Biscayne Bay, Florida; 

Dade Environmental Resource Management Technical Report 88-1, 79 pg and appendices. 

Brand, L.E., M.D. Gottfried, C.C. Baylon, and N.S. Romer, 1991. Spatial and temporal distribution of phytoplankton in 

Biscayne Bay, Florida; Bulletin of Marine Science 49: pg 599-613. 

Brand, L.E., 2002. The transport of terrestrial nutrients to South Florida coastal waters; In The Everglades, Florida Bay, 

and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook, J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 

FL, pg. 361-413. 

Caccia, V.G. and J.N. Boyer, 2005. Spatial patterning of water quality in Biscayne Bay, Florida, as a function of land 

use and water management; Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 pg. 1416-1429. 

Caccia, V.G. and J.N. Boyer, 2007. A nutrient loading budget for Biscayne Bay, Florida; Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 pg. 

994-1008. 

Castro, J., and D. Shinde, 2008. Water quality in Everglades National Park, Part I: Statistical methods for censored 

data, GEER-2008, July 28 - August 1, Naples, Florida. 

Cooper, R.M. and J. Lane, 1987. An atlas of eastern Dade County surface water management basins. Technical 

Memorandum DRE 231, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL, November 1987, 76 pg. 

Cunningham, K.J., M.C. Sukop, H. Huang, P.F. Alvarez, H.A. Curran, R.A. Renken, and J.F. Dixon, 2009. Prominence 

of ichnologically influenced macroporosity in the karst Biscayne aquifer: Stratiform "super-K" zones; US Geological 

Survey, GSA Bulletin, vol 121 pg. 164 - 180. 

Fish, J.E. and M. Stewart, 1991. Hydrogeology of the surficial aquifer system, Dade County, FL; US Geological Survey, 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4108. 

Genereux, D. and E. Slater, 1999. Water exchange between canals and surrounding aquifer and wetlands in the 

southern Everglades, USA; Journal of Hydrology, 219, pg. 153-168. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2471
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Graves, G., M. Thompson, G. Schmitt, D. Fike, C. Kelly, and J. Tyrrell, 2005. Using macroinvertebrates to document the 

effects of a storm water-induced nutrient gradient on a subtropical estuary; In Estuarine Indicators by Stephen A. 

Bortone, CRC Press. 

Gilliom R.J., and D.R. Helsel, 1986. Estimation of distributional parameters for censored trace level water quality data, 

1., Estimation techniques; Water Resources Research, 22, pg. 135-146. 

Helsel, D.R., 2005. Nondetects and data analysis: Statistics for censored environmental data; John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Helsel, D.R., and T.A. Cohn, 1988. Estimation of descriptive statistics for multiply censored water quality data: Water 

Resources Research 24, pg 1997-2004. 

Hewett P., and G. Ganser, 2007. A comparison of several methods for analyzing censored data; Annals of 

Occupational Hygiene, Vol. 51, No. 7, pg. 611-632. 

Lietz, A.C., 1999. Methodology for estimating nutrient loads discharged from the East Coast Canals to Biscayne Bay, 

Miami-Dade County, Florida; USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4094. 

Long, E.R., G.M. Sloane, G.I. Scott, B. Thompson, R.S. Carr, J Biedenbach, T.L. Wade, B.J. Presley, K.J. Scott, C. 

Mueller, G. Brecken-Fols, B. Albrecht, J.W. Anderson, and G.T. Chandler, 1999. Magnitude and extent of chemical 

contamination and toxicity in sediments of Biscayne Bay and vicinity; NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 

CCMA 141. 

Migliaccio, K.W. and B.M. Castro, 2009. Storm event sampling in Biscayne Bay watershed; Final Report to South 

Florida Water Management District. 

Muñoz-Carpena, R., A. Ritter, and Y.C. Li. 2005. Dynamic factor analysis of groundwater quality trends in an 

agricultural area adjacent to Everglades National Park; Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 80: pg. 49-70. 

O'Donnell, K., L. Lord, R. Hicks, M. Thompson, G. Graves, Tien-Shuenn Wu, A. Wildman, C. Marks, J. Townsend, and 

M. Lake, 2005. Water quality status report: Biscayne Bay - Southeast Coast; FDEP, Division of Water Resource 

Management. http://tlhdwf2.dep.state.fl.us/basin411/southeast/status/BB-SECoast.pdf 

O'Hair, S.K. and T. Wang, 1999. Nitrogen and phosphorus monitoring in ground water under vegetable fields of 

southern Florida; Final Report for South Florida Water Management District. 

Parker, G.G., G.E. Ferguson, and S.K. Love, 1955. Water resources of southeastern Florida with special reference to 

the geology and groundwater of the Miami Area; Water Supply Paper 1255, US Geological Survey, US Government 

Printing Office, Washington D.C., 965 pg. 

Rudnick, D., C. Madden, S. Kelley, R. Bennett, and K. Cunniff, 2006. Report on algae blooms in Eastern Florida Bay 

and Southern Biscayne Bay, Report: SFWMD Tech. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2472
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

She, N., 1997. Analyzing censored water quality data using a non-parametric approach; Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association 33, pg. 615-624. 

Szmant, A.M., 1987. Biological investigations of the Black Creek Vicinity; Biscayne National Park, Research Resources 

Management Report SER-87, US Department of Interior, National Park Service. 

USEPA, Chapter 4: Methodology for Deriving U.S. EPA's Proposed Criteria for Canals: 

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. 

Zhang, J.Z., C.R Kelble, C.J. Fisher, and L. Moore, 2009. Hurricane Katrina induced nutrient runoff from an agricultural 

area to coastal waters in Biscayne Bay, Florida; Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science vol 84 Iss 2, pg. 209-218. 

Comment ID 1794-1.001.032 

Author Name: Taylor W. 

Organization: US Department of the Interior 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list 

Literature Cited 

FDEP. 2008. Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List. Update October 

2008. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration Bureau 

of Watershed Management. Tallahassee, Florida. 

RECOVER (2010) 2009 Draft System Status Report (February 2010); available at 

ftp://ftp.saj.usace.army.mil/pub/Public_Dissemination/RECOVERRLG% 

20Review%20of%202009%20SSR/Word%20Versions/; pg 3-12 

Comment ID 1797-1.001.041 

Author Name: Braswell S. 

Organization: Florida Farm Bureau 

Original comment letter contains two attachments: 

Attachment A: Economic Contributions of Florida's Agricultural, Natural Resource, Food and Kindred Product 

Manufacturing, Distribution and Service Industries in 2008 

Attachment B: Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs of Proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida 

Agriculture 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2473
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1801-1.001.012 

Author Name: Green III K.
 

Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District
 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list 

Literature Cited 

Bachmann, R. W., Jones, B. L., Fox, D. D., Hoyer, M. Bull, L. A., and Canfield, D. E. 1996. Relations between trophic 

state indicators and fish in Florida (U.S.A.) lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 842-855. 

Bachmann, R. W., Horsburgh, C. A., Hoyer, M. V., Mataraza, L. K. and Canfield, D. E. 2002. Relations between trophic
 

state indicators and plant biomass in Florida lakes. Hydrobiologia 470(1-3): 219-234.
 

Bays, J. S. and T. L. Crisman (1983). Zooplankton and trophic state relationships in Florida lakes. Canadian Journal of
 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40: 1813-1819.
 

Beaver, J. and T. Crisman (1982). The trophic response of ciliated protozoans in freshwater lakes. Limnology and
 

Oceanography 27(2): 246-253.
 

Brenner, M., Binford, M. W. and Deevey, E. S. 1990. Lakes. Chapter 11 in: Ecosystems of Florida. Myers, R. L. and
 

Ewel, J. J. (eds.), University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida, 765 pp.
 

Canfield, D. E., Jr. and L. M. Hodgson (1983). Prediction of Secchi disc depths in Florida lakes: Impact of algal biomass
 

and organic color. Hydrobiologia 99(1): 51-60.
 

Canfield, D. E., Jr., Langeland,K. A., Linda, S. B., and Haller, W. T. 1985. Relations between water transparency and
 

maximum depth of macrophyte colorization in lakes. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management(23:): 25-28.
 

Dodds, W. K. (2006). Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnology and Oceanography 51(1, part
 

2): 671-680.
 

Elmore, J. L., Cowell, B. C. and Vodopich, D. S. 1984. Biological communities of three subtropical Florida lakes of
 

different trophic character. Arch. Hydrobiol. 100: 455-478.
 

Fulton, R. S. and Smith, D. 2008. Development of phosphorus load reduction goals for seven lakes in the Upper
 

Ocklawaha River Basin, Florida. Lake and Reservoir Management 24: 139-154.
 

Gallegos, C.L. 2005. Optical water quality model of a blackwater river estuary: the Lower St. Johns River, Florida, USA.
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2474
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 63: 57-72. 

Gao, X. 2009. Nutrient and Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for the Six Middle St. Johns River Segments between the Inlet of 

Lake Harney (WBID 2964A) and St. Johns River above Wekiva River (WBID 2893C). Division of Water Resource 

Management, Bureau of Watershed Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Tallahassee, FL. 

Available from www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/final_tmdl.htm 

Harper, D. 1992. Eutrophication of freshwaters. Chapman & Hall, New York, 327 pp. 

Havens, K.E. 2003. Phosphorus-algal bloom relationships in large lakes of South Florida: Implications for establishing 

nutrient criteria. Lake and Reservoir Mgmt. 19(3): 222-228. 

Hendrickson, J.C., N. Trahan, E. Gordon and Y. Ouyang. 2007. Estimating relevance of organic carbon, nitrogen, and 

phosphorus loads to a blackwater river estuary. J. Amer. Water. Res. Assoc. 43(1): 264-279. 

Hoos and McMahon 2009. Spatial analysis of instream nitrogen loads and factors controlling nitrogen delivery to 

streams in southeastern U.S. using spatially-referenced regression on watershed attributes (SPARROW) and regional 

classification frameworks. Hydrological Processes DOI : 10.1002/hyp.7323. 

Hopkinson, C.S. et al. 1998. Terrestrial inputs of organic matter to coastal ecosystems: An intercomparison of chemical 

characteristics and bioavailability. Biogeochemistry 43: 211-234. 

Hoyer, M. V., S. K. Notestein, Frazer, T. K., and Canfield, D. E. 2006. A Comparison Between Aquatic Birds of Lakes 

and Coastal Rivers in Florida. Hydrobiologia 567: 5-18. 

LAKEWATCH Florida, 2001. Florida LAKEWATCH 2001 Report. Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 

University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, Florida. 

Mallin, M.A., M.R. McIver, S.H. Ensign and L.B. Cahoon. 2004. Photosynthetic and heterotrophic impacts of nutrient 

loading to blackwater streams. Ecol. App. 14(3): 823-838. 

Moss B., Madgwick J. & Phillips G. 1996. A Guide to the Restoration of Nutrient-enriched Shallow Lakes. Broads 

Authority, Norwich, Norfolk, UK. 

Nordlie, F. G. 1976. Plankton communities of three central Florida lakes. Hydrobiologia 48: 65-78. 

Paul, M.J., J. L. Meyer and C.A. Couch. 2006. Leaf breakdown in streams differing in catchment land use. Freshwater 

Biol. 51: 1684-1695. 

Scavia, D. and Yong, L. 2009. Exploring estuarine nutrient susceptibility. Environ. Sci. Technol., 43: 3474-3479. 

Scheffer M. (1998) Ecology of Shallow Lakes, First Edition. Chapman & Hall, London, UK. 

Schelske, C. L., Lowe, E. F., Kenney, W. F., Battoe, L. E., Brenner, M., and Coveney, M. F. 2010. How anthropogenic 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2475
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

darkening of Lake Apopka induced benthic light limitation and forced the shift from macrophyte to phytoplankton 

dominance. Limnol. Oceanogr. 55(3), in press. 

Stelzer, R.S., J. Heffernan and G. Likens. 2003. The influence of dissolved nutrients and particulate organic matter 

quality on microbial respiration and biomass in a forest stream. Freshwater Biol. 48: 1925-1937. 

Steward, J. S. and Lowe, E. F. 2010). General empirical models for estimating nutrient load limits for Florida's estuaries 

and inland waters. Limnology and Oceanography 55(1): 433-445. 

Vighi, M. and G. Chiaudani (1985). A simple method to estimate lake phosphorus concentrations resulting from natural 

background loadings. Water Resources Research 19((8):): 987-991. 

Vollenweider, R. A. (1975). Input-output models (with special reference to the phosphorus loading concept in 

limnology). Hydrologie 37(1): 53-84. 

Wetzel, R. G. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems, Third Edition. Academic Press, San Diego, California 

Whitmore, T. J. (1989). Florida diatom assemblages as indicators or trophic state and pH. Limnology and 

Oceanography 34(5): 882-895. 

Comment ID 1805-3.001.141 

Author Name: Gallagher J. 

Organization: Pasco County 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

REFERENCES 

Applied Technology and Management, Inc. (ATM). 2010. Refinement to Proposed TMDLs for Dissolved Oxygen and 

Nutrients, Baker Creek, Mill Creek, and Spartman Branch. Submitted to Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP).
 

Canfield, J., Horsburgh, C., Omernik, J., & Azevedo, S. (2007). Lake Regions of Florida. Map Prepared by the USEPA.
 

Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.epa.gov/wed/ pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm
 

Carlson, R. (1977). A Trophic State Index for Lakes. 22, 361-369.
 

Carlson, R., & Simpson, J. (1996). A Coordinator’s Guide to Volunteer Lake Monitoring Methods. North American Lake
 

Management Society.
 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009a. DRAFT Technical Support Document: Development of
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2476
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Lakes and Streams. Standards and Assessments Section. Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009b. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Review of SPARROW: How useful is it for the purposes of supporting water quality standards development? Located in 

EPA’s docket Id No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009¬0596. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010a. Personal communication with Charles Kovach. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (2010b). Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of 

Lakes. Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010c. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of 

Streams and Springs/Clear Streams. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2010d. Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters published January 26, 2010. 

February 10, 2010. Tallahassee, FL. 

Florida Lakewatch. (2004). A Beginner's Guide to Water Management -Color, January 2004. University of Florida, 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Gainesville, Florida: Florida Lakewatch. Department of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences. 

Florida Lakewatch (2007). Fish Communities and Trophic State in Florida Lakes, April 2007 [Report] : Information 

Circular #110 / Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; University of Florida. -Gainesville, Florida : Florida 

Lakewatch. Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2007. 

Hoos, A.B., and G. McMahon. 2009. Spatial analysis of instream nitrogen loads and factors controlling nitrogen delivery 

to streams in the southeastern United States using spatially referenced regression on watershed attributes 

(SPARROW) and regional classification frameworks. Hydrol. Processes. Published online in Wiley InterScience. DOI: 

10.1002/hyp.7323. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 

Huber, W. C., Bresonik, P. L., Heaney, J. P., Dickinson, R. E., Preston, S. D., Dwornik, D. S., et al. (1982). A 

Classification of Lakes. University of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, Gainesville. 

Line, J., ter Braak, C. T., & Birks, H. (1994). WACALIB Version 3.3 -A Computer Program to Reconstruct Environmental 

Variables from Fossil Assemblages by Weighted Averaging and to Derive Sample-Specific Errors of Prediction. Journal 

of Paleolimnology , 10, 147-152. 

Salas, H. J., & Martino, P. (1991). A Simplifed Phosphorus Trophic State Model for Warm-Water Tropical Lakes . Water 

Research , 25, 341-350. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009). Florida’s Inland Waters, Chapter 1. US Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2477
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 131 (EPA-HQOW-2009-0596; FRL-XXXX-X) (RIN 2040-AF11) Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing 

Waters. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA’s Proposed Rule for 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Inland Surface Fresh Waters. 

Vollenweider, R. (1976). Advances in Defining Critical Loading Levels for Phosphorus in Lake Eutrophication. Mem. Ist. 

Ital. Idrobiol. , 33, 53-83. 

Vollenweider, R. (1975). Input-Output Models with Special Reference to the Phosphorus Loading Concept in Limnology. 

Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Hydrologie , 37, 53-84. 

Whitmore, T., & Brenner, M. (2002). Paleologic Characterization of Pre-Disturbance Water Quality Conditions in EPA 

Defined Florida Lake Regions. University of Florida, Department Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

Comment ID 1805-3.001.142 

Author Name: Gallagher J. 

Organization: Pasco County 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a website. See http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/cgibin/reports/search.asp for more information regarding the FDEP's TMDL audit reports at. 

Comment ID 1806-1.001.001 

Author Name: Bacchus S. 

Organization: Applied Environmental Services, LLC 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of court case number 04-21448-CIV-GOLD, 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States of America. See original comment for more information. 

Comment ID 1806-2.001.001 

Author Name: Bacchus S. 

Organization: Applied Environmental Services, LLC 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2478
 
20004 

Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced
 

without consent of the copyright holder.
 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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.
 

Telephone: 202-566-1744
 

Fax: 202-566- 9744
 

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov
 

Comment ID 1806-3.001.001 

Author Name: Bacchus S. 

Organization: Applied Environmental Services, LLC 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 1810-1.001.005 

Author Name: Young L. 

Organization: Clean Water Network of Florida 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2479
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

The problem of drawing relationships between nitrogen and phosphorus levels and water body health must be 

considered in light of the fact that many of our nation's waters, including Florida waters, now have levels of nitrogen and 

phosphorus that, based upon available evidence from sediment cores, are far in excess of natural levels. Few real 

reference waters remain. Thus, the best that can be done is to consider nitrogen and phosphorus levels in water bodies 

that are reasonably believed not to be seriously affected by nitrogen or phosphorus pollution, and then extrapolate 

estimates of the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that that will protect aquatic surface waters, including sensitive 

species that remain. 

Drawing reasonable "lines" based on past practice and experience is both proper and a very common regulatory 

function. Administrative agency regulatory numerical standards are lawfully established if they are "within a zone of 

reasonableness." Hercules Inc. v. EPA, 598 F.2d 91, 107-08 (D.C. Cir. 1978). See also, Reynolds Metal Co. v. United 

States EPA, 760 F.2d 549, 558 (4th Cir. 1985) (upholding EPA numerical standard). 

In short, to protect the nation's waters from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, EPA must do the best it can to make 

reasonable estimates based on available data; it may not design criteria in order to attain a result that is economically 

palatable. Timing and implementation of the criteria can involve policy choices, but those are to be made after 

protective criteria are developed. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in reference to the court cases Hercules Inc. v. EPA, 598 F.2d 

91, 107-08 (D.C. Cir. 1978) as well as, Reynolds Metal Co. v. United States EPA, 760 F.2d 549, 558 (4th Cir. 1985). 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1810-2.001.001 

Author Name: Young L. 

Organization: Clean Water Network of Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of COMMENTS OF THE CLEAN WATER 

NETWORK OF FLORIDA, INC. and the SIERRA CLUB ON THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 62-303 F.A.C. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1834-4.001.042 

Author Name: Bronson C. 

Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Original comment letter contains additional data as a reference list. See original comment letter for references. 

Comment ID 1835-2.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2480
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Nieto G. 

Organization: Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto on behalf of New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta 

Corporation 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of The "Joint Submittal" to The Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA) Administrative Record; EPA DOCKET ID NO.: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 Regarding the 

Proposed Rule on Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; 40 CFR Part 131.43, 

Publicly Noticed on January 26, 2010 By: The Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District, The 

Florida Sugar Cane League, United States Sugar Corporation, New Hope Sugar Company, and Okeelanta Corporation. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1836-1.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

This media is not available in Regulations.gov. Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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
 

Comment ID 1836.001.053 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list (in table on page 23 of pdf) from Southwest 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2481
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Florida Management District. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1836.001.059 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about lakes in Figure 1. Lake Regions as 

Identified by Griffith et al. (1997), Figure 2. Relationship between specific conductance and total alkalinity in lakes 

monitored by the City of Lakeland, and Figure 3. Ground-level (a.) and aerial (b.) views of Crooked Lake in Polk County. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1838-1.001.008 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland 

Furthermore, we submit and incorporate the data and information of the following documents: 

1. The Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, Florida Section of the American Water Works Association 

Utility Council and Florida Rural Water Association comments on the proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria 

for Florida dated April 26, 2010 submitted under Docket 10. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. 

2. Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs of Proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Agriculture date 

April 22, 2010 submitted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service under Docket 10. No. EPAHQ-OW-2009-0596. 

3. United States Environmental Protection Agency Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Flowing Waters Comments 

by Janicki Environmental, Inc. and Applied Technology and Management, Inc. dated April 27, 2010, submitted by the 

Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority on April 28, 2010 under Docket 10. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009­

0596. 

4. EPA, Science Advisory Board, Processes and Effects Committee Advisory Report, Draft 1 (Jan. 8, 2010) available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wgssp/nutrients/docs/fedcral/dep concerns epa nutrients 0210.Pdf 

5. FDEP, Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's 

Lakes and Flowing Waters published January 26, 2010 (Feb. 17, 2010). 

http://www.dep.state.flus/water/wgsspJllutrients/federal.htm. 

6. FDEP, Evaluation of Florida Benchmark Site Exceedance Frequency Relative to EPA's Proposed In-stream 

Protection Values (lPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) (Feb. 1, 2010) at 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2482
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wgssp/nutrients/docs/fcderal/eval_epa_propo_cd_criteria_020210.pdf. 

7. SJRWMD, 2004 Status and Trends in Water Quality at Selected Sites in the St. Johns River Water Management 

District (2006), available at http://floridaswater.com/technicalreports/pdfs/TP/SJ2006-6.pdf. 

8. FDEP's online analysis of surface water compliance with EPA instream protective values available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wgssp/nutrients/federal.htm. 

9. FDEP, Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305{b) Report and 303(d) List Update, 33 (Oct. 2008), 

available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waterldocsI2008 Integrated Report.pdf. 

10. EPA, Stage I Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, at http://www.epa.gov/safewatcrfmdbp/dbpl.html. 

11. Lake Regions of Florida, Glenn Griffith (US EPA), Daniel Canfield, Jr. (University of Florida), Christine Horsburgh 

(University of Florida), James Omemik (US EPA), Sandra Azevedo (OAO Corp.), available: 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregion/fl/fl/lkregfront.pdf 

12. Office of Water, EPA, Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's 

Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida [hereinafter Cost Estimate] (2010), available at 

http://www.flcitrusmutual.com/file 3b8175e3-d681-44c58.pdf 

13. Carollo Engineers, Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida's Domestic Water Reclamation 

Facilities (2010). 

14. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Lakes, Proposed 

January 26,2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency, available: 

http://www.dcp.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/fdep_comments lakes criteria.pdf. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its list of data and information from select documents 

documents to be submitted and incorporated from the City of Maitland. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1838-10.001.001 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies 

may be made as follows: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2483
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

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 

Comment ID 1838-2.001.001 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a City Map of the City of Maitland. See 

original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1839-2.001.001 

Author Name: Cohen M. 

Organization: University of Florida, Florida International University and University of Georgia 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2484
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Comment ID 1885.001.006 

Author Name: Connor T. 

Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment titiled "Bay Scallop Research" by the FWC 

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH INSTITUTE. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1888-1.001.004 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of the Wiregrass Ranch Inc. 

As pointed out in the attached Report, the proposed rule is significantly flawed and is not based on scientifically 

defensible methods. There has been significant amounts of information created in the State of Florida that were not 

utilized in the proposed rule process. Wiregrass incorporates the following information and data within the documents 

listed: 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its list of documents containing additional information and 

data. See original comment letter. 

1.�The Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, Florida Section of the American Water Works Association 

Utility Council and Florida Rural Water Association comments of the proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria 

for Florida dated April 26, 2010 submitted under Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. 

2.�Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs of Proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Agriculture date April 

22, 2010 submitted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service under Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW2009-0596. 

3.�EPA, Science Advisory Board, Processes and Effects Committee Advisory Report, Draft, 1 (Jan. 8, 2010) available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/dep_concerns_epa_nutrients_0210.pdf. 

4.�FDEP, Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's 

Lakes and Flowing Waters published January 26, 2010 (Feb. 17, 2010) 

http://www/dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm. 

5.�FDEP, Evaluation of Florida Benchmark Site Exceedance Frequency Relative to EPA's Proposed In-stream 

Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) (Feb. 1, 2010) at 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2485
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

http:/www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/eval_epa_proposed_criteria_020210.pdf. 

6.�SJRWMD, 2004 Status and Trends in Water Quality at Selected Sites in the St. Johns River Water Management 

District (2006), available at http://floridaswater.com/technicalreports/pdfs/TP/SJ2006-6.pdf. 

7.�FDEP's online analysis of surface water compliance with EPA instream protective values available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm. 

8.�FDEP, Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update, 33 (Oct. 2008), 

available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/docs/2008_Integrated_Report.pdf. 

9.�Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium, Comments and Request Regarding the Development of Protective 

Loads for the Tampa Bay Estuary as It Relates to Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes, Flowing Water and 

Estuaries in Florida (March 4, 2010), available at 

http://www.tbeptech.org/attachments/074_FINAL_NMC_Response_NNC_03082010.pdf. 

10.�Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, SBEP Accomplishments, available at http://www.sarasotabay.org/aboutsbepaccomplishments.html. 

11.�Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, State of the Bay 2006, 10 (2006), available at 

http://www.sarasotabay.org/pdfs/StateOfTheBay_06.pdf. 

12.�Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, State of the Bay 2006, 11-12 (2006), available at 

http://www.sarasotabay.org/pdfs/StateOfTheBay_06.pdf. 

13.�EPA, Stage 1 Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/dbpl.html. 

14.�Lake Regions of Florida, Glenn Griffith (US EPA), Daniel Canfield, Jr. (University of Florida), Christine Horsburgh 

(University of Florida), James Omernik (US EPA), Sandra Azevedo (OAO Corp.), available: 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/fl/fl_lkreg_front.pdf. 

15.�SWFWMD, 2006 Regional Water Supply Plan (Dec. 2006) ("Reclaimed water, if used effectively and efficiently, has 

a great potential to help meet the 2025 water supply demand."), available at 

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/plans/RWSP/previous/rwsp.pdf. 

16.�Office of Water, EPA, Preliminary Estimate of Potential Compliance Costs and Benefits Associate with EPA's 

Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida [hereinafter Cost Estimate] (2010), available at 

http://www.flcitrusmutual.com/files/3b8175e3-d681-44c5-8.pdf. 

17.�Carollo Engineers, Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida's Domestic Water Reclamation 

Facilities (2010). 

Comment ID 1892-1.001.003 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2486
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its list of documents containing additional information and 

data. See original comment letter. 

The Authority also files the information and data from the following documents by reference: 

1.�The Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council, Florida Section of the American Water Works Association 

Utility Council and Florida Rural Water Association comments of the proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria 

for Florida dated April 26, 2010 submitted under Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. 

2.�Economic Impacts and Compliance Costs of Proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Agriculture date April 

22, 2010 submitted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service under Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OW2009-0596. 

3.�EPA, Science Advisory Board, Processes and Effects Committee Advisory Report, Draft, 1 (Jan. 8, 2010) available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/dep_concerns_epa_nutrients_0210.pdf. 

4.�FDEP, Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's 

Lakes and Flowing Waters published January 26, 2010 (Feb. 17, 2010) 

http://www/dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm. 

5.�FDEP, Evaluation of Florida Benchmark Site Exceedance Frequency Relative to EPA's Proposed In-stream 

Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) (Feb. 1, 2010) at 

http:/www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/eval_epa_proposed_criteria_020210.pdf. 

6.�SJRWMD, 2004 Status and Trends in Water Quality at Selected Sites in the St. Johns River Water Management 

District (2006), available at http://floridaswater.com/technicalreports/pdfs/TP/SJ2006-6.pdf. 

7.�FDEP's online analysis of surface water compliance with EPA instream protective values available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm. 

8.�FDEP, Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update, 33 (Oct. 2008), 

available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/docs/2008_Integrated_Report.pdf. 

9.�Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium, Comments and Request Regarding the Development of Protective 

Loads for the Tampa Bay Estuary as It Relates to Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes, Flowing Water and 

Estuaries in Florida (March 4, 2010), available at 

http://www.tbeptech.org/attachments/074_FINAL_NMC_Response_NNC_03082010.pdf. 

10.�Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, SBEP Accomplishments, available at http://www.sarasotabay.org/aboutsbepaccomplishments.html. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2487
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

11.�Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, State of the Bay 2006, 10 (2006), available at 

http://www.sarasotabay.org/pdfs/StateOfTheBay_06.pdf. 

12.�Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, State of the Bay 2006, 11-12 (2006), available at 

http://www.sarasotabay.org/pdfs/StateOfTheBay_06.pdf. 

13.�EPA, Stage 1 Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/dbpl.html. 

14.�Lake Regions of Florida, Glenn Griffith (US EPA), Daniel Canfield, Jr. (University of Florida), Christine Horsburgh 

(University of Florida), James Omernik (US EPA), Sandra Azevedo (OAO Corp.), available: 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/fl/fl_lkreg_front.pdf. 

15.�SWFWMD, 2006 Regional Water Supply Plan (Dec. 2006) ("Reclaimed water, if used effectively and efficiently, has 

a great potential to help meet the 2025 water supply demand."), available at 

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/plans/RWSP/previous/rwsp.pdf. 

16.�Carollo Engineers, Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient Criteria at Florida's Domestic Water Reclamation 

Facilities (2010); ("Conventional municipal wastewater technology (EPS, 2008) cannot achieve EPA proposed criteria"). 

The Authority requests its comments be considered by EPA and the proposed rule be modified to include scientifically 

valid standards that do not reduce the efficient use of reclaimed water. 

Comment ID 1892-1.001.007 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a website link. See SWFWMD, SWUCA, at 

http://www.SWFWMD.state.fl.us/waterman/swuca/ for more information on background about the Southern Water Use 

Caution Areas (SWUCA). 

Comment ID 1899-1.001.001 

Author Name: Haley J. 

Organization: Lake Worth Drainage District 

Original comment letter contains additional data. See original comment letter. 

This media is not available in Regulations.gov. Contact the 

EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a 

copy of this document. Requests for copies may be made as 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2488
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

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 

Comment ID 1900.001.014 

Author Name: Gulbinsky E. 

Organization: Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of SAB Comments Regarding EPA's Latest 

Guidance Pertaining to the Development of Nutrient Standards. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1913-1.001.001 

Author Name: Kamener K. 

Organization: 

Orignal comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Case Numbers 09-6011 – James D. English 

III, et al. v. Lee County et al., 09-6012 – James D. English III, et al., v. Babcock Property Holdings, LLC, et al., and 09­

6013 - Lee County v. Babcock Property Holdings, LLC, et al.. See orginal comment letter. 

Comment ID 1918-1.001.001 

Author Name: Larson A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a newsletter, a Florida DEP document, and 

a "Response of Tom White to allegations of the Florida DEP”. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1919-1.001.022 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2489
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a website. See 

http://www.greenwaterlab.com/photo_bloom_020410.htm for photographs of algae outbreaks and accompanying toxin 

levels. 

Comment ID 1919-2.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. 

This material was later submitted as comment numbers 2419 through 2421.
 

This media is not available in Regulations.gov. Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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
 

Comment ID 1920-2.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W. 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This material was later submitted as supplemental material as comment ID 2422 and all associated attachments 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2490
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

(2422.1 through 2422.16).
 

This media is not available in Regulations.gov. Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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
 

Comment ID 1928-1.001.001 

Author Name: Waters D. 

Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a spreadsheet of assessment data by WBID 

from City of Miami Department of Public Works. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 1928.001.001 

Author Name: Waters D. 

Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works 

Please find attached the City of Miami's comments regarding the proposed water quality standards for Florida fresh 

waters and pertinent attachments. 

As mentioned in a recent email, the Department has conducted a preliminary assessment comparing EPA's proposed 

criteria for streams, lakes, and canals to the data available in the Department's Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) database. 

Attached is an updated version of the Excel workbook that more fully explains the methodology behind the assessment. 

The results will also be posted to the Department's website at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm in the near future. In addition to the assessment 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2491
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

information, this Excel workbook includes important information about how the assessments were performed and about 

assumptions or decisions that were made in order to carry out the assessments due to ambiguity in the proposal. It is 

important that users review the information provided to better understand the results. Please note that this additional 

information is provided in 4 different tabs within the Excel workbook: Notes and Terms, Column Header descriptions, 

Hints on finding your waterbody, and Assessment Summary. Additionally, it should be understood that these 

assessments are preliminary and have no regulatory implications. If you have any questions about the analysis, please 

contact Julie Espy at (850) 245-8416. 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site. See 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm for more information about a preliminary assessment 

comparing EPA's proposed criteria for streams, lakes, and canals. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2008-1.001.001 

Author Name: Davis J. 

Organization: Environmental Services & Permitting, Inc. on behalf of the PCS Phosphate-White Springs 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Science Advisory Board Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (FY 2009) Augmented for Review of Nutrient 

Criteria Guidance. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2008-10.001.001 

Author Name: Davis J. 

Organization: Environmental Services & Permitting, Inc. on behalf of the PCS Phosphate-White Springs 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Technical Advisory Committee, Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria Meeting Notes, Volume 1, Public Meeting. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2008-11.001.001 

Author Name: Davis J. 

Organization: Environmental Services & Permitting, Inc. on behalf of the PCS Phosphate-White Springs 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the SAB Ecological Processes and Effects 

Committee 12/3/09 Draft Review of Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation KEY FINDINGS. See original 

comment letter. 

Comment ID 2008-2.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2492
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Davis J.
 

Organization: Environmental Services & Permitting, Inc. on behalf of the PCS Phosphate-White Springs
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the Watershed Monitoring Section of the 

Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, in the form of a 

document titled, "Evaluation of Florida's Status Network Data Relative to EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria Instream Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) for Streams." See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2008-7.001.001 

Author Name: Davis J.
 

Organization: Environmental Services & Permitting, Inc. on behalf of the PCS Phosphate-White Springs
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an excel spreadsheet of assessment 

information by WBID. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2008-8.001.001 

Author Name: Davis J.
 

Organization: Environmental Services & Permitting, Inc. on behalf of the PCS Phosphate-White Springs
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of meeting notes titled, "Estuary Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria Public Meeting for Portions of the Florida Coast from Dixie County to Pasco County, Meeting Notes." 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2008-9.001.001 

Author Name: Davis J.
 

Organization: Environmental Services & Permitting, Inc. on behalf of the PCS Phosphate-White Springs
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Technical Advisory Committee, Numeric 

Nutrient Criteria Meeting Notes, Volume 2, Public Meeting. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2008.001.001 

Author Name: Davis J.
 

Organization: Environmental Services & Permitting, Inc. on behalf of the PCS Phosphate-White Springs
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2493
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Please accept the attached disk containing various files as attachments to emailed comments from PCS Phosphate ­

White Springs which are expected to be emailed on April 28, 2010 by Stanley W. Posey. Manager. Environmental 

Affairs, We believe these documents also support and are relevant to comments by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), 

phosphate companies in Florida. and other regulated parties in Florida and as such request these items be considered 

along with their comments. The disk contains copies of the actual documents and links to the web sites from which they 

were obtained, We believe these files contain valuable and important data and comments that should be fully evaluated 

and considered by EPA in the rule making process. 

fdep_comments_streams_mar 12.I'd f 

FOEI' assessment of EPA proposa l on Florida waters ipv -dpv-infe rences-Oz l O.pdf 

FOEI'_NNC_exceedances_All_Asse ssments_final 0305 1G.xlsx 

fdep_commentsJakes_mar 12.pd f 

fdep_commentsJ akes_dpv_mar1 2.pdf 

epa sab review Nut rient+Guidanc e+Dra ft+Report+ 12-3-09.pdf 

fdep_eval_epaproposcd, criteria_0202 1O.pdf 

nutrient_tac_transcript_040710_morning.pdf 

nutri ent_tac_transcript_0407 10_a fternoon.pdf 

fdep_n otes_estu aryJeb231Omtg.pdf 

SAB Draft - Key Findings bullets - Final.doc 

Supplemental Instructions for FOEI' N C assessment of EI'A proposal on Florida waters. uri 

http--www.dep. state.fl.us-water-wq ssp-nutrient s-docs- federa l-evaI_epayroposed_criteria_0202 10.I'd f.uri 

Summary of DEI' Main Co ncerns with Federal Proposal.url 

FOEI' draft Comments regarding Streams Criteria.uri 

FOEI' Numeric Nutrient Criteria Preliminary Assessment ofFlorida's Fresh Waters.url 

FOEI' comments regarding Lakes Criteria.url 

FOEI' draft Comments regarding Downstream Prote cti on Val ues for Lakcs.url 

http--www.dep .state.fl.us-wate r-wq ssp-nutrient s-docs-nutrient_tac_transcript_0407 10_a liernoon.pdf.url 

http--www.dcp.stal e.ll.us-water-wqssp·nutri ent s-docs-nutrient_tac_transcript_040710_morning.pdfuri 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a list of attachments. 

Comment ID 2018-3.001.001 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 3.1. City of Tampa freshwater WBIDs 

impaired for nutrients based on proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Rule. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2018-7.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2494
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an expert declaration of Anthony Janicki ­

project experience and recent reports and publications. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2018-8.001.001 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 2029-1.001.001 

Author Name: Coe J. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a Memo on Permit Determinations for 

Miscellaneous Industrial Wastewater Activities. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2030-1.001.007 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2495
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: 

I have included a disk with reports from the Suwannee River Watershed Management District.
 

The spreadsheets with the data are so large that I'm not sure how you could print them.
 

There are also reports from SRWMD that detail springs conditions and trends on this disk
 

Thanks for you time and consideration.
 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the Report from Suwannee River Water Managment District:
 

Nutreints Trending Upward on page 4 of the pdf. See original comment letter.
 

This report was collected from a YSI Data Sonde that contained a real time nitrate monitor. It was maintained by the 

Florida Geological Society and was located in the main flow in the Fanning Spring Run. 

The instrument collected water samples every two hours, reported the data via a cell phone connection and the reports 

were made available online through a YSI web page. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the print out of nutrient data collected by an experimental YSI 

Data Sonde located in Fanning Springs on page 13 of the pdf. See original comment letter. 

Even though local springs were contaminated from between 1.19 mg/L and 29.9 ml/L nitrate nitrogen yet the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection issues a permit for a contained animal feeding operation with cows on cement.
 

If additional monitoring of these significantly impaired springs was done, I was not able to obtain the data.
 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a memorandum regarding a Review of Groundwater
 

Monitoring Plan for Suwannee Farms, from Florida Geological Survey on page 49 of the pdf. See original comment
 

letter.
 

Original comment letter contains additional information in Attachment 3, GW Monitoring Plan Suwannee Farms
 

Memorandum on page 57 of the pdf. See original comment letter.
 

Original comment letter contains additional information in "The Evaluation of Effectiveness of Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) for Animal Waste and Fertilizer Management to Reduce Nutrient Inputs into Groundwater in the 

Suwannee River Basin" on page 63 of the pdf. See original comment letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in "Sources and Chronology of Nitrate Contamination in Spring 

Waters, Suwannee River Basin, Florida" on page 70 of the pdf. See original comment letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the IW Permitting Routing Slip for Suwannee Farms on page 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2496
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

81 of the pdf. See original comment letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in the Notice of Permit Issuance from FDEP on page 84 of the 

pdf. See original comment letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in a letter regarding File # FLA362778, Suwanee County Florida 

Permittee Shenandoah Dairy, 16540 68th Place, Live Oak, Florida 32060 on page 110 of the pdf. See original comment 

letter. 

Original comment letter contains additional information in USGS's Spring Contributions to Water Quantity and Nitrate 

Loads in the Suwannee River during Base Flow in July 1995 on page 112 of pdf. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2030-2.001.001 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

the docket. 

Comment ID 2046-1.001.001 

Author Name: Goodson M. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of CF Industries 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2497
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment regarding a House amendment approved for 

filing on 4/27/2010. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2046-2.001.001 

Author Name: Goodson M. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams on behalf of CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Science Advisory Board Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (FY 2009) Augmented for Review of Nutrient 

Criteria Guidance. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.088 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

REFERENCES 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 2008. Alabama's 2008 303(d) list fact sheet. Prepared by 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery, AL, 184 p. 

Alexander, R. B., J. K. Bohlke, E. W. Boyer, M. B. David, J. W. Harvey, P. J. Mulholland, S. P. Seitzinger, C. R. Tobias, 

C. Tonitto and W. M. Wollheim. 2009. Dynamic modeling of nitrogen losses in river networks unravels the coupled 

effects of hydrological and biogeochemical processes. Biogeochemistry 93:91-116. 

Baker, L. A, P. L. Brezonik and C. R. Kratzer. 1981. Nutrient loading - Trophic state relationships in Florida lakes. Publ. 

No. 56, Water Resources Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL., 126 p. 

Bay Soundings Website. 2010. Red Tide "As predictable as Weather", published Fall 2006. Accessed 4/23/2010. 

Available online: http://baysoundings.com/faII06/redtide.asp. 

Blancher, E. C., II. 1979. Lake Conway, Florida: Nutrient Dynamics, Trophic State, Zooplankton Relationships. 

Dissertation. The University of Florida, Gainesville, FL., 146 p. 

Blancher, E. C., II. 1980. Impacts of stormwater runoff on a Florida lake ecosystem: Effects on water quality and biota. 

In, Y. A Yousef, M. P. Wanielista, W. M. McLellon, J. S. Taylor (eds.), Urban Stormwater and Combined Sewer 

Overflow Impact on Receiving Water Bodies. Proceedings of National Conference, Nov. 26-28, 1980, Orlando, FL., 

EPA-600/9-80-056, p. 90 - 114. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2498
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Blancher, E. C., II, S. A Sklenar, R. A Park and J. L. Wood. 2002. Determining the linkages for a nutrient TMDL in a 

stream listed as use-impaired for endangered species. National TMDL Science and Policy Conference, Proceedings of 

the Water Environment Federation, November 13-16, 2002, Phoenix, AZ, 900-918 p. 

Bledsoe, E. L. and E. J. Phlips. 2000. Relationships between phytoplankton standing crop and physical, chemical, and 

biological gradients in the Suwannee River and plume region, U.S.A Estuaries 23(4):458-473. 

Bledsoe, E. L., E. J. Phlips, C. E. Jett and K. A Donnelly. 2004. The Relationships among phytoplankton biomass, 

nutrient loading and hydrodynamics in an inner-shelf estuary. Ophelia 58:29-47. 

Boyer, J. N., C. R. Kelble, P. B. Ortner and D. 1. Rudnick. 2009. Phytoplankton bloom status: Chlorophyll a biomass as 

an indicator of water quality condition in the southern estuaries of Florida, USA Ecological Indicators 95:556-567. 

Brezonik, P. L., E. C. Blancher, II, V. B. Myers, C. L. Hilty, M. K. Leslie, C. R. Kratzer, G. D. Marbury, B. R. Snyder, 1. L. 

Crissman and J. J. Messer. 1979. Factors affecting primary production in Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Report No. 07-79­

01. Prepared by Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Prepared 

for Florida Sugar Cane League, Clewiston, FL., 296 p. 

Brezonik, P.L. and C.D. Pollman. 1999. Phosphorus chemistry and cycling in Florida lakes: global issues and local 

perspectives, pp. 69-109 in: Phosphorus Biogeochemistry in Subtropical Ecosystems, K. Reddy et al. (Eds.), Lewis 

Publ., Boca Raton, FL. 

Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Boicourt, C. Wicks, and J. Woerner. 2007. Effects of Nutrient 

Enrichment in the Nation's Estuaries: A Decade of Change. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series 

No. 26. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD., 328 p. 

Carleton, J. N., R. A. Park and J. S. Clough. 2009. Ecosystem modeling applied to nutrient criteria development in 

rivers. Environmental Management 44:485-492. 

Cox, R., E. C. Blancher and M. Misra. 2007. Determination of eutrophic conditions in the Cahaba River, Alabama by 

using a dynamic partial least squares model. Abstract. 2007 AIChE Annual Meeting, November 4-9,2007, Salt Lake 

City, UT. 

Davenport, L. J., W. M. Howell, K. Morse, K. Yancie, and J. L. Wood. 2005. Fishes and macroinvertebrates of the 

Cahaba River: A three-year study. J. Alabama Acad. Sci. 713. Available online: http://www.accessmylibrarv.com/article1 G1-135759742/fishes-and-macroinvertebratesupper. html. 

Detenbeck, N. E. and P. L. Brezonik. 1991a. Phosphorus sorption by lake sediments. 1. Comparison of equilibrium 

models. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25: 395-403. 

Detenbeck, N. E. and P. L. Brezonik. 1991b. Phosphorus sorption by lake sediments. 2. Effects of pH and other solution 

variables. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25: 403-409. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2499
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Eisenreich, S. J. and D. E. Armstrong. 1977. Chromatographic investigation of inositol phosphate esters in lake waters. 

Environmental Science and Technology 11:497-501. 

EI-Shall, H. and M. Bogan. 1994. Characterization of Future Florida Phosphate Resources. FIPR Publication #02-082­

105. Prepared for Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, Bartow, FL. Accessed April 7, 2010. Available online: 

http://www1.fipr.state.fl.us/fipr/fipr1.nsf/129fc2ac92d337ca85256c5b00481502/5138f39b 

78f2c39985256b2e00780b7d!OpenDocument. 

Fernald, E. A. and E. D. Purdum. 1998. Water Resources Atlas of Florida. Tallahassee: Institute of Science and Public 

Affairs, Florida State University. 

Fleming, L. E. 2001. Frequently asked questions about blue green algae (cyanobacteria) and their toxins. Report to the 

Florida Harmful Algae Bloom Taskforce, December, 2001,6 p. Available online: 

http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/ohh/science/pdf/Q A draft. pdf. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Review of 

SPARROW: How useful is it for the purposes of supporting water quality standards development? Submitted to Water 

Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket 10 No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1065, Washington, DC, 10 p. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010a. About the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve 

and Associated Sites. Available online: http://www.dep.state.f1.us/coastal/sites/apalachicola/info.htm. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010b. Evaluation of Florida benchmark site exceedance frequency 

relative to EPA's proposed in-stream protection values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs). February 1, 

2010. Prepared by the Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support, Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010c. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Downstream 

Lakes - Draft. Proposed January 26, 2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency. March 17, 2010. Prepared by 

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Docket 10 No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009·· 0596, Washington, DC. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010d. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Lakes - Draft. 

Proposed January 26, 2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency. March 16, 2010. Prepared by Division of 

Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. U. S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Docket 10 No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596, Washington, DC. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010e. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and 

Springs / Clear Streams - Draft. Proposed January 26, 2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency. March 12, 2010. 

Prepared by Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket 10 No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009·· 0596, Washington, DC. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010f. St. Joseph Bay State Buffer Preserve Information Page. 

Available online: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/apalachicola/stjosephbuffer.htm. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2500
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010g. Groundwater Program. Accessed: April 26, 2010. Available 

online: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/groundwater.htm 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010a. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Website. HAB General 

Information. Accessed March 23, 2010. Available online: http://research.myfwc.com/features/categorv 

sub.asp?id=1799. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010b. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Website. HAB General 

Information. Accessed April 23, 2010. Available online: http://research.myfwc.com/features/view article.asp?id=25327 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010c. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Website. Red Tide FAQ 

General Information. Accessed April 23, 2010. Available online: http://research.myfwc.com/supportlview fags.asp?id=13 

Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. 2010. Phosphate Primer: Accessed April 7, 2010. Available online: 

http://www1.fipr.state.fl.us/PhosphatePrimer. 

Florida State University. 2010. Florida Climate Center. Accessed April 7, 2010. Available online: 

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/climate center/index.shtml. 

Frydenborg, R. and D. Bartlett. 2009. Stream Nutrient Criteria. FDEP Division of Resource Assessment and 

Restoration. Presentation at Public Workshop, Tallahassee, FL, June 17, 2009. Available online: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.usIWATER/wgssp/nutrients/meeting-arch.htm. 

Frydenborg, R. and K. Weaver. 2009. Development of Numeric Nutrient Criteria to Protect Florida's Flowing Waters. 

FDEP Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration. Presentation at Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, 

Tallahassee, FL, May. 5, 2009. Available online: http://www.dep.state.fl.usIWATER/wgssp/nutrients/meeting-arch.htm. 

Heil, C. A. 2005. Florida Red Tide: (History, Health, Nutrients &Status). Presentation to TBEP Management Board, 

August, 2005. 

Heil, C. A. and K. A. Steidinger. 2009. Monitoring, management, and mitigation of Karenia blooms in the eastern Gulf of 

Mexico. Harmful Algae 8:611-617. Herald Tribune. Timeline of Red Tide Blooms. Published July 16th , 2006. Available 

011 HT website: http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI0=2006607160583 

Howell, W. M. and L. J. Davenport. 2000. Report on fishes and macroinvertebrates at four sites on the Cahaba River, 

Jefferson County, Alabama. Prepared by Department of Biology, Samford University, Birmingham, AL. Prepared for 

Jefferson County, Barton Laboratory, Homewood, AL. 

Howell, W. M. and L. J. Davenport. 2001. Report on fishes and macroinvertebrates of the upper Cahaba River and 

three additional sites. Prepared by Department of Biology, Samford University, Birmingham, AL. Prepared for Jefferson 

County, Barton Laboratory, Homewood, AL. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2501
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Howell, W. M. and L. J. Davenport. 2002. Report on fishes and macroinvertebrates of the upper Cahaba River and four 

additional sites. Prepared by Department of Biology, Samford University, Birmingham, AL. Prepared for Jefferson 

County, Barton Laboratory, Homewood, AL. 

Hoyer, M. V., 1. K. Frazer, S. K. Notestein and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2002. Nutrient, chlorophyll, and water clarity 

relationships in Florida's nearshore coastal waters with comparisons to freshwater lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 59:1024-1031. 

Hu, C., F. E. Muller-Karger, G. A. Vargo, M. B. Neely and E. Johns. 2004. Linkages between coastal runoff and the 

Florida Keys ecosystem: A study of a dark plume event. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L15307. 

Huber, W. C., P. L. Brezonik, J. P. Heaney, R. E. Dickinson, S. D. Preston, D. S. Dwornik and M. A. DeMaio. 1982. A 

classification of Florida lakes. Report ENV-05-82··1, Water Resources Research Center. Prepared by Water Resources 

Research Center, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Prepared 

for Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, FL. 

Hydroqual, Inc. 2010. Comments on EPA's Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing 

Waters (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596) 19 April 2010. 28 p. 

Lower St. Johns River Executive Committee. 2010. 2009 progress report Lower St. Johns River basin management 

action plan. Final report presentation, Jan. 13,2010. Available online: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/northeasUstjohnsITMDLldocs/Jan201 O/Annual report presHn tation 011310 Final.pdf. 

Lowery, T. A. 1996. Contributions to Estuarine Eutrophic Modeling: Watershed Population Estimation Methodology, 

Estuarine Flushing Model, and Eutrophication Model. Dissertation. University of Maryland at College Park, College 

Park, MD., 164 p. 

Lowery, T. A. 1998. Modelling estuarine eutrophication in the context of hypoxia, nitrogen loadings, stratification and 

nutrient ratios. Journal of Environmental Management 52:289-305. 

McPherson, B. F., C. Y. Hendrix, H. Klein and H. M. Tyus. 1976. The Environment of South Florida, A Summary Report. 

U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1011., 102 p. Available online: 

http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/papers/pp1011/index.html. 

Milroy, S. P., D. A. Dieterle, R He, G. J. Kirkpatrick, K. M. Lester, K. A. Steidinger, G. A. Vargo, J. J. Walsh and R H. 

Weisberg. 2008. A three-dimensional biophysical model of Karenia brevis dynamics on the west Florida shelf: A look at 

physical transport and potential zooplankton grazing controls. Continental Shelf Research 28: 112-136. 

Monbet, Y. 1992. Control of phytoplankton biomass in estuaries: A comparative analysis of microtidal and macrotidal 

estuaries. Estuaries 15(4):563-571. National Academy of Sciences. 2001. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water 

Quality Management. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

National Council on Air &Stream Improvement (NCASI). 2010. Anaylsis and Comments on Environmental Protection
 

Agency Water Quality Standards for the StatE! of Florida's Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule. Docket 10 No. EPA-HQ11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2502
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

OW-2009-0596, Washington, DC. 102p. 

Ogburn, R. W., III, and P. L. Brezonik. 1986. Examination of the oligotrophication hypothesis: Phosphorus cycling in an 

acidic Florida lake. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 30:1001-1006. 

Pratt, J. R, J. Cairns, Jr., P. M. Stewart, N. B. Pratt, B. R Niederlehner. 1985. Measurement of recovery in lakes 

following phosphate mining. FIPR Publication #03045- 039. Prepared for Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, 

Bartow, FL. Accessed February 5, 2010. Available online: http://www1.fipr.state.f1.us. 

Reckhow, K. H. 2002. Assessing the TMDL approach to water quality management. Presented at The Environmental 

Forum on TMDLs in Texas. University of Texas, Austin. 

Reckhow, K. H., M. E. Borsuk, and. A, Stow. 2002. Adaptive implementation of TMDLs using Bayesian analysis. 

National TMDL Science and Policy Conference, Proceedings, of the Water Environment Federation, November 13­

16,2002, Phoenix, Al, 12 p. 

Salas, H. J. and P. Martino. 1991. A simplified phosphorus trophic state index for warm water tropical lakes. Water 

Research 25:341-350. 

Shannon, E. E. and P. L. Brezonik. 1972a. Eutrophication analysis: A multivariate approach. Journal of the Sanitary 

Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 98:37-57. 

Shannon, E. E. and P. L. Brezonik. 1972b. Relationships between lake trophic state and nitrogen and phosphorus 

loading rates. Environmental Science and Technology 6:719725. 

Smith, N. P. 1990.3 Tidal and nontidal flushing of Florida's Indian River Lagoon. Estuaries 16:739-746. see pg 33 

Smith, V. H. 2003. Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems. Environmental Science and Pollution 

Research 10(2):126-139. see pg 33 

Smith, V. H. 2006. Responses of estuarine and coastal marine phytoplankton to nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment. 

Limnology and Oceanography 51(1, part 2):377384. see pg 33 

State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group. 2009. An urgent call to action: A report olf the State-EPA Nutrient 

Innovations Task Group. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 170 p. 

Steidinger, K. A. 2009. Historical perspective on Karenia brevis red tide research in the Gulf of Mexico. Harmful Algae 

8:549-561. 

Steward, J. S. and E. F. Lowe. 2010. General empirical models for estimating nutrient load limits for Florida's estuaries 

and inland waters. Limnology and Oceanography 55(1):433-445. 

TAl Environmental Sciences. 2001. Periphyton standing crop in the Cahaba River, Alabama during low-flow conditions, 

2001. Cahaba River - MOA data: July September 2001. Prepared by TAl Environmental Sciences, a Division of Strand 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2503
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Associates, Inc., Mobile, AL. Prepared for Jefferson County, Birmingham, AL. 

TAl Environmental Sciences. 2002. Periphyton standing crop in the Cahaba River, Alabama during low-flow conditions, 

2001. Cahaba River - MOA data: JulySeptember 2002. Prepared by TAl Environmental Sciences, a Division of Strand 

Associates, Inc., Mobile, AL. Prepared for Jefferson County, Birmingham, AL. 

Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium. 2010. Tampa Bay nitrogen management consortium comments and 

request regarding the development of protective loads for the Tampa Bay Estuary as it relates to establishing numeric 

nutrient criteria for lakes, flowing waters and estuaries in Florida. March 8, 2010. Submitted to Water Docket, U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Docket 10 No. EPA-HQ-OW2009- 0596-0606.1, Washington, DC, 24 p. 

The Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2001. Manatee River: Comprehensive Watershed Management 

Plan. Prepared in cooperation with Manatee, City of Bradenton and City of Palmetto, FL., 175 p. 

U. S. District Court Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division. 2009. Case: 4:08cv- 00324-RH-WCS. Document 

90-2. Filed 08/25/2009. (consent decree). 

USEPA. 2010a. Water quality standards for the State of Florida's lakes and flowing waters. Proposed Rule. 40 CFR 

Part 131 [EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596; FRL-9105-1], RIN 2040-AF11. Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 16, January 

26,2010,54 p. 

U.S. EPA. 2010b. Technical support document for U.S. EPA's proposed rule for numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's 

inland surface fresh waters. Water Docket, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Docket 10 No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009­

0596-0003 to EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.35. Washington, DC. 

Vollenweider, R. A. 1976. Advances in defining critical loading levels for phosphorus in lake eutrophication. Mem. 1st. 

Ital. Idrobiol. 33:53-65. 

Walsh, J. J., J. K. Jollif, B. P. Darrow, J. M. Lenes, S. P. Milroy, A. Remsen, D. A. Dieterle, K. L. Carder, F. R. Chen, G. 

A. Vargo, R. H. Weisberg, K. A. Fanning, F. E. Muller-Karger, E. Shinn, K. A. Steidinger, C. A. Heil, C. R. Tomas, J. S. 

Prospero, T. N. Lee, G. J. Kirkpatrick, T. E. Whitledge, D. A. Stockwell, T. A. Villareal, A. E. Jochens and P. S. 

Bontempi. 2006. Red tides in the Gulf of Mexico: Where, when, and why? Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. III, 

C11003, doi: 10.1029/2004JC002813, 46 p. 

Wang, X., B. Qin, G. Gao and H. W. Paerl. 2010. Nutrient enrichment and selective predation by zooplankton promote 

Microcystis (Cyanobacteria) bloom formation. Journal of Plankton Research 0(0):1-14. Available online: 

www.plankt.oxfordjournals.org. 

Weaver, K. and J. Hendrickson. 2009. Remaining lakes nutrient criteria considerations. Presentation at Technical 

Advisory Committee Meeting, Aug. 5, 2009. Available online: http://www.dep.state.f1.us/water/wgssp/nutrients/meetingarch.htm. 

Weisberg, R. H. 2010. Coastal Ocean and Estuary Water Quality: It's all about Connectivity. Presentation at FDEP 

Estuarine Nutrient Criteria Workshop, St. Petersburg, FL, February 4,2010. Available online: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2504
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

http://www.iswgfla.org/water/wgssp/n utrients/docs/estuarine/stpete/weisberg presentati on 020410.pdf 

White, W. H. 1970. The geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula. Geological Bulletin No. 51. Bureau of Geology, 

Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. Accessed April 7, 2010. Available online: 

http://ufdcweb1.uflib.ufl.edu/ufdcl?a=fgs&b=UF00000149&v=00001. 

Whitmore,1. 2003. Water-Quality Trends Associated with Algal Coumminity Changes in Florida Lakes: Historic 

Evidence for Defining Nutrient Criteria. University of Florida, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 

Gainesville, FL, 106 p. 

Whitmore,1. and M. Brenner. 2002. Paleologic Characterization of Pre-disturbance Water Quality Conditions in EPA 

Defined Florida Lake Regions. University of Florida, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Gainesville, FL, 30 

p. 

Wool, 1. A., J. L. Martin and S. R. Davie. 2003. Modifications of WASP for simulating periphyton dynamics, sediment 

oxygen demand and other enhancements. National TMDL Science and Policy Conference, Proceedings of the Water 

Environment Federation, November 16-19, 2003, Chicago, AZ, 8 p. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.089 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Qualification statement for Eldon C. 

Blancher. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.090 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment 1. Discriminant Analysis Output. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.091 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment 2 Resume of Dr. Eldon C. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2505
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Blancher II, Ph.D. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.092 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Attachment 3 Assessment of Financial 

Impact on Phosphate Mining and Mineral Processing: Complying with EPA's Proposed Nutrient Water Quality 

Standards for Florida. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.122 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information through a web site link. See website: 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/tac_archive.htm for more information. (page 53 of the pdf). 

Comment ID 2233-1.001.123 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information that are in electronic format. 

NOTE: This report includes electronic attachments. This report is accompanied by a Digital Video Disk (DVD) with 

electronic copies of the documents submitted in support of the comments provided herein. All documents on the 

enclosed DVD are incorporated herein by reference and are intended to be part the official record under Docket ID No.: 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. 

Comment ID 2233-2.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information. 

This media is not available in Regulations.gov. Contact the 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2506
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 2384.001.001 

Author Name: Lehtinen D. 

Organization: Counsel for the Miccosukee Tribe 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the July 29, 2008 ruling on the State of 

Florida's Phosphorus Rule for the Everglades. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2386-1.001.001 

Author Name: Davis A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information
 

Supplemental attachment material for comment submitted by A. Davis, Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1150 and
 

1286
 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a Physical Item.
 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2507
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Telephone:
 

202-566-1744
 

Fax:
 

202-566- 9744
 

Email:
 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov
 

Comment ID 2391-1.001.001 

Author Name: White T. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Compliant for Relief Under the Florida 

Whistleblower Act Section 112.3187, Florida Statutes. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2391.001.001 

Author Name: White T. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment as the Response of Tom White to the 

Allegations of FDEP. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2393.001.001 

Author Name: Costillo C. 

Organization: Sierra Club 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a copy of a Fertilizer ordinance. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental material for comment submitted by C. Costillo, Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1071 and 1183 

Supplemental information (maps) left by the commentor at the public hearing is available at the EPA Docket Center in 

Washington, DC. To view or receive a copy of this (maps) contact the Docket Center - In person/writing: USEPA, 

Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 2822T, Room 3334, Washington, DC. 20004. Telephone: 202-566-1744. 

Fax: 202-566-9744. Email: docket-costumerservice@epa.gov. 

Comment ID 2394-1.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2508
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Hamel R.
 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment Best Management Practices for Gulf Citrus by 

the Gulf Citrus Growers Association. 

Supplemental attachment material for comment submitted by Ron Hamel, Executive Vice President, The Gulf Citrus 

Growers Association, Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1040 

Comment ID 2394-2.001.001 

Author Name: Hamel R.
 

Organization: Gulf Citrus Growers Association
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Water Quality Best Management Practices 

for Cow/Calf Operations from Gulf Citrus Growers Association. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental attachment material for comment submitted by Ron Hamel, Executive Vice President, The Gulf Citrus 

Growers Association, Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1040 

Comment ID 2395-1.001.001 

Author Name: Hauck A.
 

Organization: Council of Civic Associations
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of letter to the USEPA Office of the Inspector 

General from the Council of Civic Associates, Inc. in Bonita Springs, Florida, about the breakdown of the 

implementation of the CWA. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental attachment Material for Comment submitted by Ann Hauck, Co-Founder, The Council of Civic 

Associations, Inc. Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1333 

Comment ID 2395-2.001.001 

Author Name: Hauck A.
 

Organization: Council of Civic Associations
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter to USEPA from the Council of Civic 

Associations in Bonita Springs, Florida about the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project. See original 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2509
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

comment letter. 

Supplemental attachment Material for Comment submitted by Ann Hauck, Co-Founder, The Council of Civic 

Associations, Inc. Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1333 

Comment ID 2395-3.001.001 

Author Name: Hauck A. 

Organization: Council of Civic Associations 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an emailed letter to Stanley Meiburg of EPA 

from Roger Hauck of the Council of Civic Associations, about water quality protections in Florida. See original comment 

letter. 

Supplemental attachment Material for Comment submitted by Ann Hauck, Co-Founder, The Council of Civic 

Associations, Inc. Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1333 

Comment ID 2395-4.001.001 

Author Name: Hauck A. 

Organization: Council of Civic Associations 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter to the House Committee on Natural 

Resources from Ann Hauck of the Council of Civic Associations, about water quality issues in Florida. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental attachment Material for Comment submitted by Ann Hauck, Co-Founder, The Council of Civic 

Associations, Inc. Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1333 

Comment ID 2395-5.001.001 

Author Name: Hauck A. 

Organization: Council of Civic Associations 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer from 

Roger Hauck of the Council of Civic Associations, about water quality protections in Florida, along with an attached 

report. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental attachment Material for Comment submitted by Ann Hauck, Co-Founder, The Council of Civic 

Associations, Inc. Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1333 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2510
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2396-1.001.001 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a USGS publication, GROUND WATER 

ATLAS of the UNITED STATES Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental attachment Material for Comment submitted by Janice M. McLean, Assistant City Attorney, City of 

Tampa, Florida. Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2018.8 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2511
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2396-2.001.001 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a USGS publication, U.S. Geological 

Survey, National Water-Quality Assessment Program, Data to Support Statistical Modeling of Instream Nutrient Load 

Based on Watershed Attributes, Southeastern United States, 2002. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental attachment Material for Comment submitted by Janice M. McLean, Assistant City Attorney, City of 

Tampa, Florida. Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2018.8 

Comment ID 2396.001.001 

Author Name: McLean J. 

Organization: City of Tampa 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of An Investigation of Canals in Southwest 

Florida: Relationships Between Biological Health, Water Quality, and Habitat Lee and Collier Counties, June 2001 by 

FDEP. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental attachment Material for Comment submitted by Janice M. McLean, Assistant City Attorney, City of 

Tampa, Florida. Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-2018.8 

Comment ID 2398.001.001 

Author Name: Brookes R. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment (Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to 

Restore and Protect Our Waters by the USEPA (page 1-4 of PDF), an article about Microcystis aeruginosa in the 

Caloosahatchee from the Southwest Florida Watershed Council (page 5 of PDF), an article from the USDA-NRCS titled 

Potential Health Issues Associated with Blue--Green Algae Blooms in Impoundments, Ponds, and Lakes (pages 6-7 of 

PDF) an article from Maryland DNR called Harmful Algae Blooms in Maryland (pages 8-9 of PDF), an article about 

Florida Bay algae blooms, (pages 11-12 of PDF) an article, Toxic algae found in Caloosahatchee by Pamela Smith 

Hayford (page 12) and several slides from the Florida Public Hearings (page 13-14)). See original comment letter. 

Commenter has submitted hand-written comments on several of the pages. 

Comment ID 2399-1.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2512
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-10.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the report: KINGS BAY VEGETATION 

EVALUATION. See original comment letter. 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-11.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2513
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Water quality characteristics of the 

nearshore Gulf coast waters adjacent to Citrus, Hernando and Levy Counties Project COAST 1997-2008, from the 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-12.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of "Origin of Nutreints in Ground Water 

Discharging from the King's Bay Springs prepared by the Ambient Ground-Water Quality Monitoring Program, 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-13.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2514
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-15.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF 

CONSERVATION, FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 9 - MISCELLANEOUS 

STUDIES. See original comment letter. 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-18.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

This attachment is supplemental material to comment ID 1836. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2515
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2399-19.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-2.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment titled Return to Neverland: Shifting Baselines 

Affect Eutrophication Restoration Targets, which focuses on coastal ecosystem degradation. See original comment 

letter. 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-22.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2516
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Southern Water Use Caution Area 

Recovery Strategy by Southwest Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-24.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-3.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of 1996 Water-Quality Assessment for the 

State of Florida: Section 305 (6) Main Report. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2517
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-7.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Nonpoint Source Model Development and 

Basin Management Strategies for Lemon Bay prepared by ERD for Southwest Florida Water Management District. See 

original comment letter. 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

Comment ID 2399-8.001.001 

Author Name: Moore D. 

Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2518
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2401.001.001 

Author Name: Watson S. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Wildlife seen in the Simmons Hammock 

Greenway. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental material for comment submitted by S. Watson, Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1152 

Comment ID 2402-1.001.001 

Author Name: Speed, Sr. D. 

Organization: Douglas Speed & Associates 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental material for comment submitted by Douglas W. Speed, Sr., Douglas Speed & Associates, Document 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1339 

Comment ID 2402.001.001 

Author Name: Speed, Sr. D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2519
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Douglas Speed & Associates 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of photographs and results of a fertilizer study 

conducted by Douglas Speed and Associates. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental material for comment submitted by Douglas W. Speed, Sr., Douglas Speed & Associates, Document 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1339 

Comment ID 2404-1.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Consent Decree between FL Wildlife 

Ferderation, Inc; Environmental Confederation of Southwest FL; and Save our Creeks, Inc vs. the USEPA. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-10.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Overview of the Central Florida 

Coordination Area. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-11.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Central Florida Coordination Area 

Action Plan. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2520
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-12.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment regarding the Central Florida Coordination 

Area (CFCA). See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-13.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment on the Order Revising Verified List of Impaired 

Waters. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-14.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Review of Empirical Approaches for 

Nutrient Criteria Derivation. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-15.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2521
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Science Advisory Board Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (FY 2009) Augmented for Review of Nutrient 

Criteria Guidance. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-16.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the EPA Web site titled: Stage 1 

Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-17.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2522
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-18.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the 2004 Status and Trends in Water 

Quality at Selected Sites in the St. Johns River Water Management District. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-20.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of FDEP's powerpoint presentation titled 

Overview of EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Flowing Waters. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-21.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the NUTRIENT CONTROL DESIGN 

MANUAL. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2523
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2404-3.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of REGION III REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY 

PLAN for Bay County, Florida August 2008. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-4.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of JAMES T. McCLAVE, Ph.D.'s area of 

expertise and experience. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-5.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of An Urgent Call to Action: Report of the 

State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-6.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2524
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment that contains personal correspondence 

regarding information on Blue Baby Syndrome. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-7.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Below the Surface, an In-Depth Look at 

Water Reuse: A Safe and Effective Way to Save Water. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-8.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment regarding Numeric Nutreint Criteria Cost 

Implication for Florida POTWs. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404-9.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Technologies to Meet Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria at Florida's Domestic Water Reclamation Facilities. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2404.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2525
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a Florida district court case. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-1.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter from Ben Grumbles of the EPA to 

Mike Sole of the FDEP of the Florida Determination under the Clean Water Act. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-10.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a House Memorial. See original comment 

letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-11.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about The Florida Senate BILL ANALYSIS 

AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2526
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-12.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of personal correspondence regarding Blue 

Baby Syndrome in Florida. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-13.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of personal correspondence regarding Blue 

Baby Syndrome in Florida. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-14.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of FWEA's notice of intent to sue. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-15.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2527
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a CURRICULUM VITA OF CYNTHIA C. 

HEWITT. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-16.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment an affidavit for James T. McClave. See 

original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-17.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment the Ecoregions of Florida. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-18.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment on the NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF 

INTEGRATED SURFACE WATER/GROUNDWATER FLOW AND SOLUTE TRANSPORT IN THE SOUTHERN 

EVERGLADES, FLORIDA. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2528
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-19.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment on the Southern Water Use Caution Area. See 

original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-2.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment regarding TMDL information. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-20.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of personal correspondences regarding 

WQBELS. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-21.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2529
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management 

Consortium Comments and Request Regarding the Development of Protective Loads for the Tampa Bay Estuary as It 

Relates to Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes, Flowing Waters and Estuaries in Florida. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-22.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment on The Biscayne Aquifer Southeast, Florida. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-4.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about the Main Concerns with the 

Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters 

published January 26, 2010. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-5.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2530
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment CHAPTER 62-302 SURFACE WATER 

QUALITY STANDARDS of an excerpt from an unkown document. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-7.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Integrated Water Quality Assessment 

for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-8.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the State of Florida Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria Development Plan. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405-9.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a Florida Cabinet Hearing. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2405.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2531
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment or the Nutrient Control Design Manual STATE 

OF TECHNOLOGY REVIEW REPORT. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-1.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Florida Waterbody Assessment results in a 

table. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-10.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

It appears to very a good deal according to location. A recent 8-year study showed concentrations of 1.44 mgl^-1 at a 

site on the southeastern edge of the Tampa peninsula, and 0.92 mgl^-1 at a site 15 miles due east of Sarasota. Strayer 

et al., Influence of Air Mass Origin on the Wet Deposition of Nitrogen to Tampa Bay, Florida--An Eight-Year Study, 41 

Atmospheric Environment 4310 (2007). If you're interested in pursuing this theory, I suggest taking a look at the article 

(attached). The study concluded that only 25% of this nitrogen was from local sources. It also reported that rainfall 

delivers 10% of the total nitrogen load to Tampa Bay--but noting an EPA study that concluded atmospheric deposition 

accounted for 67%! 

Another study gives a summary chart of typical compositions worldwide of organic and inorganic nitrogen. It wouldn't 

paste correctly into this email. See Cornell et al., Organic Nitrogen Deposition on Land and Coastal Environments: A 

Review of Methods and Data, 37 Atmospheric Environment 2173, 2176 (2003). 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2532
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information about nutrient content of rainwater. See original comment letter. 

Finally, somewhat tangentially, I also came across a study concluding that lightning strikes (which of course FL has a lot 

of) significantly increases deposition of N in rainwater. 

Comment ID 2406-11.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District Regional Water Supply Plan. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-12.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of SBEP accomplishments. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-13.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of State of the Bay 2006 for Sarasota Bay. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-14.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2533
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-15.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called Unit 4: Ecosystems // Section 4: 

Biogeochemical Cycling in Ecosystems. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-16.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2534
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-17.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment regarding PROPOSED TOTAL MAXIMUM 

DAILY LOAD (TMDL) For Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients In The Everglades (WBIDs 3252A, 3252B, 3252C, 3260, 

3263, 3265B). See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-18.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2535
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the EPA called WASP7 Benthic Algae ­

Model Theory and User's Guide. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-19.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-2.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the FDEP Web site, Basin Management 

Action Plans. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2536
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-3.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-4.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2537
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-5.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment regarding Florida's Water Quality Standards. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-6.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies 

may be made as follows: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2538
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-7.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-8.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2539
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2406-9.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF 

POTENTIAL COMPLIANCE COSTS AND BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH EPA'S PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT 

CRITERIA FOR FLORIDA. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2540
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2406.001.001 

Author Name: Childs D. 

Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment 

Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

Comment ID 2408.001.001 

Author Name: Robbins K. 

Organization: Entrix 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of FDEP's Powerpoint Presentation, Florida 

Numeric Nutreint TAC. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1105 

Comment ID 2409.001.001 

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2541
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of emails regarding the Florida Rulemaking. 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2410-10.001.001 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a table of sampling data. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2 

Comment ID 2410-12.001.001 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2542
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2410-13.001.001 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Surfacewater Quality and Biological 

Annual Report 2004. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2 

Comment ID 2410-2.001.001 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of tables and graphs on GROUND WATER 

TREND ANALYSIS. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2 

Comment ID 2410-3.001.001 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an unnamed table of sampling information. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2 

Comment ID 2410-4.001.001 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2543
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2 

Comment ID 2410-5.001.001 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a table of sampling data. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2 

Comment ID 2410-6.001.001 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies 

may be made as follows: 

In person/writing: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2544
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2 

Comment ID 2410.001.001 

Author Name: Long A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an unnamed table of sampling data. See 

original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2 

Comment ID 2411-1.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about Harmful Algal Blooms in Florida by the 

Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force Technical Advisory Group, 1999. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2411-10.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Distribution, habitat use, and movements of 

juvenile smalltooth sawfish, Pristis pectinata, in the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, Florida from the Florida Fish and 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2545
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, February 2010. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2411-2.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Chapter 11: Kissimmee Basin from the 

2010 South Florida Environmental Report. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2411-3.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the document Ecological Calibration of 

Estero Bay Basins, October 2006. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2411-4.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced
 

without consent of the copyright holder. 


Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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,
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2546
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

2822T, Room 3334 Washington, DC. 20004 

Telephone: 202-566-1744 

Fax: 202-566- 9744 

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2411-5.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about American Crocodile, Crocodylus acutus. 

See original comment letter 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1. 

Comment ID 2411-6.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment, the Status and Conservation of the American 

Crocodile in Florida: Recovering an Endangered Species While Restoring an Endangered Ecosystem, University of 

Florida, Ft. Lauderdale Research and Education Center, 2003 Technical Report. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2411-7.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Florida Manatee Recovery Plan by U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, from Conservancy of Southwest Florida. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2411-8.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2547
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of NOAA's report on South Florida 

Environmental Quality. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2412-10.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Offshore Red Tide-Associated Mortalities 

and FWRI Event Response from the Fish and Wildlife Institute. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2412-2.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of powerpoint slides titled "Use of Wetlands for 

Stormwater Treatment". See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2412-3.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of EPA's Protecting Natural Wetlands A Guide 

to Stormwater Best Management Practices. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2548
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2412-5.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an unnamed table with assessment data. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2412-7.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the table, Cumulative U.S. Clean Water 

SRF Investment from Conservancy of Southwest Florida. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2412-8.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Harmful Algal Blooms and Coastal 

Business: Economic Consequences in Florida. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2412-9.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from EPA's Web site, FInal Report: Economic 

Effects of HABs on Coastal Communities and Shellfish Culture in Florida. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental material for author ID 1482-1. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2549
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2412.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

"Ditches and canals in management of fens: opportunity or risk? A case study in the Dromling Natural Park, Germany" 

This document is copyrighted and may not be reproduced without the consent of the copyright holder 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2413-1.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and 

Protecting America's Waters. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2550
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2413-10.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a Web site called Ocean Issues Briefs: 

Harmful Algal Blooms and Toxins. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2413-2.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of EPA's National Strategy for the 

Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2413-3.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment EPA's Web site, Federal Register of 

Environmental Documents, Nutrient Criteria Development; Notice of Ecoregional Nutreint Criteria. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2413-4.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a memorandum from Benjamen Grumbles. 

See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2551
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2413-5.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of EPA's document, EPA Needs to Accelerate 

Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2413-6.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment EPA's document, EPA Needs to Accelerate 

Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2413-7.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task 

Group entitled An Urgent Call to Action. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2413-8.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Proposed Methods and Approaches for 

Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Waters. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2552
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2413-9.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from a Chesapeake Bay Program Web site 

regarding excess nutrients. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2413.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of It's Time To End The Slime: Primer On 

EPA's Proposed Rule To End Sewage, Fertilizer And Animal Manure Pollution Of Florida's Waters: The Problem, Its 

Causes, And Practical Solutions. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2414-1.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment by the CDC titled About Harmful Algal Blooms. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2414-10.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2553
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called SMALLTOOTH SAWFISH RECOVERY 

PLAN. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2414-2.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the FDEP Web site, Inorganic 

Contaminants. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2414-3.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the EPA web site, Water Quality Criteria 

for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2414-4.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the NCCOS, Economic Impacts of 

Harmful Algal Blooms. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2414-5.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2554
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the USFWS web site about water quality. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2414-6.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called Clearing the Water for Mussels, March 

2007. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2414-7.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called the AGENCY DRAFT RECOVERY 

PLAN for Endangered Fat Threeridge (Amblema neislerii), Shinyrayed Pocketbook (Lampsilis subangulata), Gulf 

Moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus), Ochlockonee Moccasinshell (Medionidus simpsonianus), Oval Pigtoe 

(Pleurobema pyriforme) and Threatened Chipola Slabshell (Elliptio chipolaensis), and Purple Bankclimber (Elliptoideus 

sloatianus), July 2003. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2414-8.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission called Effects of the 2005 Red Tide Event on Recreational Fisheries in Southwest Florida. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2555
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2414-9.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a document from the CFR, DEPARTMENT 

OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 226. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2414.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the National Ocean Service Web site, 

called Harmful Algal Blooms. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2415-1.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2556
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2415-10.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of UF, Old Dominion launch project to restore 

sponges in barren parts of Florida Bay, September 8, 2009. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2415-2.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2557
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2415-4.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a USGS Research Grant Proposal, Effect of 

toxic algae on alligators and alligator egg development. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2415-5.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called Red tide may kill marine life even after it 

dissipates from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2415-6.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the FLORIDA MANATEE MANAGEMENT 

PLAN by the FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2415-7.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J.
 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the Fish and Wildlife Research Insitute 

Web site called Importance of Seagrass. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2558
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2415-8.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment as a report by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southeast Region entitled Florida Manatee Recovery Plan. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2415-9.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a report called the Effects of Florida Red 

Tide on Marine Animals by Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

Comment ID 2415.001.001 

Author Name: Hecker J. 

Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2559
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Telephone:
 

202-566-1744
 

Fax:
 

202-566- 9744
 

Email:
 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov
 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1
 

Comment ID 2418.001.002 

Author Name: Davis A. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as several attachments of the City of Gulfport Council Agenda 

Item No. 6-b and Resolution No. 2010-35 on pages 2-5 of PDF, a Memo regarding the April 14, 2010 Environmental 

Protection Agency Public Hearing on Numerical Standards for Nutrient Levels in Florida waters on page 6 of the PDF, 

the Financial Impact from the Nitrogen Consortium, the Final NNC Approved Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management 

Consortium Declaration and Resolution on pages 7-13 of the PDF. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2419-1.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional information as 3 photos of algal blooms in the St. Johns River, 

Caloosahatchee River, and Lake Munson. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment submitted ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2419-1.001.002 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

Copyrighted page/s removed. Copyrighted material is not available in 

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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2560
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

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
 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2
 

Comment ID 2419-2.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional information as 7 photos of algal blooms in Christopher Point Canal, St. 

Johns River (2), Julington Creek Marina (2), and Doctors Lake (2) . See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2419-3.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a Powerpoint Presentation submitted by 

Earthjustice titled Suwanee and Santa Fe TMDL. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2419-5.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2561
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment MDPH GUIDELINES FOR CYANOBACTERIA 

IN FRESHWATER RECREATIONAL WATER BODIES IN MASSACHUSETTS from The Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2419-6.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2419-7.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of University of Florida's A Guide to EPA's 

Proposed Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Criteria for Florida. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2562
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment submitted ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2419-8.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K.
 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of FDEP's 1996 WATER-QUALITY 

ASSESSMENT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2419-9.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K.
 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of FDEP's DRAFT Technical Support 

Document: Development of Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Lakes and Streams. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2419.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K.
 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an affidavit for Manley Fuller. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2. 

Comment ID 2420-3.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K.
 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society
 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2563
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2420-4.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly 

Report, Illness Associated with Red Tide - Nassau County, Florida, 2007. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2420-5.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Declaratin of Jacqui Thurlow-Lippisch 

as part of Case No. 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2564
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2420-6.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K.
 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Florida Department of Health's health alert 

regarding harmful algal blooms. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2420-7.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K.
 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER SUPPLY 

PROJECT LITERATURE REVIEW OF SURFACE WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES BY CH2M HILL. See 

original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2420-8.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K.
 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about Winter Season Algal Blooms in North 

Texas Municipal Water District. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2420-9.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K.
 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a press release from the Metropolitan Water 

District of Southern California called New Algae Species Complicates Efforts to Improve Taste, Smell of Drinking Water 

for San Diego, Southwest Riverside Counties. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2565
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2421-2.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K.
 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a factsheet called Cyanobacteria and 

Drinking Water: Guidance for Public Water Systems from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2566
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2421-3.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an article from news-press.com called 

Experts fear algal infestation in Caloosahatchee River, Low salinity breeds muck that suffocates. See original comment 

letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2421-5.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2421-7.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2567
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the table COMPARISON OF DEP AND 

EPA PROPOSED RULES by an unknown author, but submitted by Earthjustice. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2421.001.001 

Author Name: Standridge K. 

Organization: Florida Wildlife Federation, Sierra club, Audubon Society and Native Plant Society 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

Comment ID 2422-1.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W. 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a journal article by Howard T. Odum, called 

Dissolved Phosphorus in Florida Waters. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2568
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

Comment ID 2422-11.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W.
 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the University of Florida IFAS extention 

called Characterizing Agriculture in Florida's Lower Suwannee River Basin Area. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

Comment ID 2422-12.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W.
 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called NPS Pollution Related to Forest 

Management Activities in Southern States written by J. McFero Grace III. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

Comment ID 2422-14.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W.
 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the University of Florida IFAS extension, 

Economic Analysis of Water Treatments for Phosphorus Removal in Florida. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

Comment ID 2422-16.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W.
 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice
 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2569
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

Comment ID 2422-2.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W. 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2570
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

Comment ID 2422-3.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W. 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

Comment ID 2422-4.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W. 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Florida Conservationists' Study Part II 

Development of Numeric Nutrient Critieria by Application of EPA's Reference Reach Methodology as Set Forth in EPA's 

Technical Guidance Manual. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2422-6.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2571
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Geologic Maps of Florida by USGS. See 

original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

Comment ID 2422-7.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W. 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a print screen from the USGS Web site, 

Lithostratigraphic Units Tertiary System Eocene Series Middle Eocene - Bartonian Stage. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

Comment ID 2422-9.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W. 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2572
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

Comment ID 2422.001.001 

Author Name: Wise W.
 

Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice
 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a resume for William R. Wise, Ph.D., P.E.. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

Comment ID 2423-1.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled One-time Delegation of Authority for 

the Purpose of Determining Pursuant to Section 303(c)(4)(B) or the Clean Water Act Wheter the State of Florida Needs 

New or Revised Water Quality Standards for Nutrients byt the US EPA. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-10.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled SAB Ecological Processes and Effects 

Committee 12/3/09 Draft Review of Emperical Approaches for Nutreint Criteria Derivation submitted by CF Industries. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-11.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2573
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled SAB Review ofEmpirical Approaches 

for Nutrient Criteria Derivation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-13.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled Expert Declaration of Dr. Eldon 

Blancher. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-17.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled 2008 Integrated Water Quality 

Assessment for Florida by the FDEP. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-18.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of EPA's comments on FDEP's proposed 

nutrient criteria. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-19.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2574
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitiled DEP's Response to EPA's 9/16 

Comment Letter. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-2.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter of determination from Benjimen 

Grumbles to Secretary Mike Sole. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-20.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitiled National Strategy for the 

Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria by the USEPA. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for 

Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-21.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a powerpoint presentation called Nutreint 

Water Quality Criteria by Eric Shaw of the Bureau of Watershed Management. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-22.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled State of Florida Draft Numeric Nutreint 

Criteria Development Plan by the FDEP. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2575
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2423-23.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called Florida Numeric Nutrient Critieria 

History and Status. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-25.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Consent Decree for the Florida Ruling. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-26.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2576
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-27.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled Guidelines for Deriving Numerical 

National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses by USEPA. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-28.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called Alabama's 2008 §303(d) List Fact 

Sheet. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-29.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a powerpoint called 2009 Progress Report 

Lower St. Johns River Basin Management Action Plan by the Lower St. Johns River Executive Committee. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-3.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2577
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter from James Giattina to Jerry Brooks 

regarding the agreement between FDEP and USEPA regarding the State's revised voluntary numeric nutrient criteria 

development plan. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-31.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Florida Nutrient FOIA List of Withheld 

Documents. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-32.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter requesting EPA documents under 

FOIA. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-33.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled Numeric Nutrient Critiera FOIA 

Materials. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2578
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2423-34.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment contains additional information as an attachment of public meeting notes from STATE OF FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN RE: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, NUMERIC 

NUTRIENT CRITERIA VOLUME 2 PUBLIC MEETING. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-35.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment contains additional information as an attachment of public meeting notes from STATE OF FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN RE: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, NUMERIC 

NUTRIENT CRITERIA VOLUME 1 PUBLIC MEETING. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-4.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment in the report from FDEP entitled State of 

Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Plan. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-5.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2579
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-6.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2580
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-7.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called Report to the Florida Harmful Algae 

Bloom Taskforce: Frequently Asked Questions About Blue Green Algae (Cyanobacteria) and Their Toxins by Lora 

Fleming and Wendy Stephan for the University of Miami. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-8.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a letter with the subject of Florida Minerals 

and Chemistry Council, Inc. Notice of Intent to File Suit under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act Failure to Perform 

Mandatory Duty - Determination of Necessity Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria from Florida Minerals and Chemistry 

Council, Inc. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423-9.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called Emperical Approaches for Nutrient 

Criteria Derivation by the USEPA. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2423.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2581
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a report called Clean Water Action Plan: 

Restoring and Protecting America's Waters. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

Comment ID 2424-10.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-11.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the 

Nation's Estuaries: A Decade of Change, Chapter 4. Regional Summaries. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2582
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-12.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled National Estuarine Eutrophication 

Assessment Update, Chapter 5. Case Studies. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-13.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled National Estuarine Eutrophication 

Assessment Update, Chapter 6. Improvements to the Assessments. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-14.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Consent Decree for the Florida Ruling. 

See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-16.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2583
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-17.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2584
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-18.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-19.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies 

may be made as follows: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2585
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-2.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-20.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2586
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from FIPR called Charaterization of Future 

Florida Phosphate Resources. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-21.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection Review of SPARROW: How useful is it for the purposes of supporting water quality standards development? 

See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2424-23.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Executive Summary from the National 

Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment Update - 2004. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-24.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a print screen from the FDEP's Ground 

Water Program Web site. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-26.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2587
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an unnamed document about the 

SPARROW model. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-27.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the CFR, 40 CFR Part 131 Water Quality 

Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-28.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a print screen from the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Research Institute Cyanobacteria in Florida Surface Water Reservoirs Web site. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-29.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a print screen from the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Research Institute Red TideWeb site. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2588
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2424-3.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Lake Conway, Florida: Nutrient Dynamics, 

Trophic State, Zooplankton Relationships by ELDON CARL BLANCHER, II. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-30.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Report to the Florida Harmful Algae 

Bloom Taskforce, Frequently Asked Questions About Blue Green Algae (Cyanobacteria) and Their Toxins by Lora E 

Fleming and Wendy Stephan at the Marine and Freshwater Biomedical Sciences Center, University of Miami. See 

original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-31.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2589
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

202-566-1744 

Fax: 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-32.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the FDEP powerpoint presentation called 

Summary of Nutrient Criteria Development. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-33.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2590
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-34.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the National Estuarine Eutrophication 

Assessment Update, The Gulf of Mexico Region. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-35.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-36.001.001 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2591
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled Florida Red Tide (History, Health, 

Nutrients & Status) by Cynthia A. Heil Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation 

Commission. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-4.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled Urban Stormwater and Combined 

Sewer Overflow Impact on Receiving Water Bodies, Proceedings of National Conference. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-6.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2592
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-7.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424-8.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2593
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2424.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a print screen from the Bay Soundings Web 

site Red Tide "As Predictable as the Weather". See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2425-1.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about Cahaba River sampling stations for 

2001 in Alabama. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2425-2.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2594
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Table of Contents for the Cahaba River 

Study. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2425-30.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment the Tables section cover page. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2595
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2425-31.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment the REPORT ON FISHES AND 

MACROINVERTEBRATES OF THE UPPER CAHABA RIVER AND FOUR ADDITIONAL SITES cover page. See 

original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2425-32.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Cahaba River Sites. See original 

comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2425-33.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2596
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Fax:
 

202-566- 9744
 

Email:
 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov
 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2
 

Comment ID 2425-34.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of R.H. Weisberg's powerpoint presentation
 

Coastal Ocean and Estuary Water Quality:
 

It's all about Connectivity from the FDEP Estuarine Nutrient Criteria Workshop. See original comment letter.
 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2
 

Comment ID 2425-35.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2597
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-1.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-10.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies 

may be made as follows: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2598
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-11.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the dissertation Contributions to Estuarine 

Eutrophication Modeling: Watershed Population Estimation Methodology, Estuarine Flushing Model, and Eutrophication 

Model by Tony Allen Lowery. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-12.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the report The Environment of South 

Florida, A Summary Report written by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Resource and Land Investigations 

(RALI) Program. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-13.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2599
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-14.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2600
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-15.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the report ASSESSING THE TMDL 

APPROACH TO WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT written by the Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the 

Total Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction, Water Science and Technology Board, National 

Research Council. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-17.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2601
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-18.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-20.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies 

may be made as follows: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2602
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-21.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the powerpoint presentation Assessing the 

TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management by Kenneth H. Reckhow of Duke University. See original comment 

letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-22.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2603
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Telephone:
 

202-566-1744
 

Fax:
 

202-566- 9744
 

Email:
 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov
 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2
 

Comment ID 2426-23.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the References and Data Sources of the 

National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment Update. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-24.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the SAB Review of Empirical Approaches 

for Nutrient Criteria Derivation from the EPA. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-26.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the report Eutrophication Analysis: A 

Multivariate Approach. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2604
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2426-27.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-28.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2605
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Washington, DC. 20004 

Telephone: 

202-566-1744 

Fax: 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-29.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-3.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2606
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-30.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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: 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2607
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-31.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the South Atlantic Region Estuary 

Summaries of the National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment Update. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-32.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2608
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-33.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-35.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a powerpoint presentation entitled 

Development of Numeric Nutrient Criteria to Protect Florida's Flowing Waters by Russ Frydenborg Ken Weaver of the 

FDEP Environmental Assessment and Restoration. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2609
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2426-36.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-4.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information.
 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced
 

without consent of the copyright holder.
 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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
 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2610
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 

Washington, DC. 20004 

Telephone: 

202-566-1744 

Fax: 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-5.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-6.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2611
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Linkages between coastal runoff and the 

Florida Keys ecosystem: A study of a dark plume event by Chuanmin Hu, Frank E. Muller-Karger, Gabriel A. Vargo, 

Merrie Beth Neely, and Elizabeth Johns. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2426-8.001.001 

Author Name: Kovach C. 

Organization: CF Industries 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the key findings on eutrophication of U.S. 

estuaries. See original comment letter. 

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

Comment ID 2427.001.009 

Author Name: Manson D. 

Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland 

Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. 

Literature Cited 

Bachman, R.W., Jones, B.L., Fox, D.D., Hoyer, M., Bull, L.A., and Canfield, D.E. 1996. Relations between trophic state 

indicators and fish in Florida (U.S.A.) lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 

Bachmann R.W., M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfield Jr. 2010. Draft alternative nutrient criteria for Florida lakes. Prepared 

on behalf of Florida LAKEWATCH and the University of Florida, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, 

Gainesville, Florida. March 25, 2010. 

Canfield D.E., Jr. and M.V. Hoyer. 1988. The Eutrophication of Lake Okeechobee. Lake and Reservoir Management 

4(2):91-99 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. Review of proposed criteria for the protection of lakes. Division 

of Environmental Assessment and Restoration. Draft 3/16/10. Comment prepared for EPA Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0596. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2612
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010b. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Downstream 

Lakes. Draft prepared by the Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration on 3/17/2010. 

Glass, P.W. 2006. Development of use-based chlorophyll criteria for recreational uses of reservoirs. Water Environment 

Foundation. WEFTEC.06: pp 4038-4050. 

Gleason, P.J. and P.A. Stone. 1976. Prehistoric trophic level status and possible cultural influences on the enrichment 

of Lake Okeechobee. Pages 198-201 in R.A. MacGill et al. 1976. Final report on the special project to prevent 

eutrophication of Lake Okeechobee. Rep. DSP-BCP-36-76. Fla. Div. State. Plann., Tallahassee. 

Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1992. Status of the Lake Ontario pelagic fish community and related ecosystem in 

1992. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Kingston, Ontario 

Griffith, G., D. Canfield, Jr., C. Horsburgh, J. Omernik, and S. Azevedo. 1997. Lake Regions of Florida. U.S. EPA 

(EPA/R-97/127). 

Lindemann, R.L. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23: 399 – 418. 

Maceina, M.J., and D.R. Bayne. 2001. Changes in black bass community and fishery with oligotrophication in West 

Point Reservoir, Georgia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 21:745-755 

Ney, J.J., Moore, C.M., Tisa, M.S., Yurk, J.J., and R.J. Neves. 1990. Factors affecting the sport fishery in a multiple-use 

Virginia reservoir. Lake and Reservoir Management. 6(1):21-32 

Ney, J.J. 1996. Oligotrophication and its discontents: effects of reduced nutrient loading on reservoir fisheries. American 

Fisheries Society Symposium. 16:285-295 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2010. Comments of the Southwest Florida water Management District 

concerning proposed 40 CFR Part 131 – Water quality standards for the state of Florida’s lakes and flowing waters. 

Submitted to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596 on 4/26/10. 

Whitmore, T.J. and M. Brenner. 2002. Paleolimnological Characterization of Pre-disturbance Water Quality Conditions 

in EPA-Defined Florida Lake Regions. Report prepared for the Florida department of Environmental Protection. 

Comment ID 2429-2.001.001 

Author Name: Arvanitas P. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of an email chain regarding the Everglades 

Restoration and some critical concerns. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2613
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Comment ID 2429-3.001.001 

Author Name: Arvanitas P. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional copyrighted information. 

This document is not available in Regulations.gov since it is a copyrighted publication and may not be reproduced 

without consent of the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center, 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 

Comment ID 2429-4.001.001 

Author Name: Arvanitas P. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Response of Tom White to the 

Allegations of the Florida, Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. 

Comment ID 2429-5.001.001 

Author Name: Arvanitas P. 

Organization: 

Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a Complaint for Relief under the Florida 

Whistleblower Act, Section 112.3187, Florida Statutes. See original comment letter. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2614
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information 

Response 

Comment IDs: All 

Response: Some comments listed in this category are referenced information associated with the comments. EPA interpreted the 

referenced information as supporting information (e.g., articles, journal papers, and reports) and did not provide a response to the 

referenced information. Where a comment indicated that EPA should consider a specific reference, EPA has provided a response. 

The responses to the referenced information are embedded in the responses to the comments to which it is associated. 

Some comments listed in this category are additional information that was submitted by commenters for consideration where the 

commenters did not provide any substantive comment or explanation of the pertinence of the additional information. During EPA's 

review of this information, the Agency could not provide a response because there was insufficient context or guidance in how it 

should consider the information. Where a comment directed EPA to consider additional information in a specific way, EPA has 

provided a response to comment where the specific additional information was referred to. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2615