# 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 documentChapter 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 2-1944Chapter 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 2-1945Chapter 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 2-1946Chapter 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 2-1947Chapter 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 2-1948Chapter 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 2-1949Chapter 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 2-1950Chapter 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 UtilitiesWe 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 2-1951Chapter 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 2-1952Chapter 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 2-1953Chapter 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 2-1954Chapter 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 2-1955Chapter 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 2-1956Chapter 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 2-1957Chapter 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 2-1958Chapter 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 2-1959Chapter 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 2-1960Chapter 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 2-1961Chapter 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 2-1962Chapter 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 2-1963Chapter 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 2-1964Chapter 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 2-1965Chapter 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 2-1966Chapter 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 2-1967Chapter 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 2-1968Chapter 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 2-1969Chapter 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 2-1970Chapter 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 2-1971Chapter 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 beforced 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 2-1972Chapter 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 2-1973Chapter 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 2-1974Chapter 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 2-1975Chapter 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 2-1976Chapter 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 2-1977Chapter 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 2-1978Chapter 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 2-1979Chapter 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 2-1980Chapter 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 beneficialreuse 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 2-1981Chapter 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 2-1982Chapter 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 2-1983Chapter 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 2-1984Chapter 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 2-1985Chapter 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 localwastewater 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 soit 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 2-1986Chapter 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 2-1987Chapter 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 2-1988Chapter 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 2-1989Chapter 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 2-1990Chapter 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 2-1991Chapter 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 2-1992Chapter 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 2-1993Chapter 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 2-1994Chapter 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 2-1995Chapter 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 2-1996Chapter 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 2-1997Chapter 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 meetingthese 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 2-1998Chapter 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 2-1999Chapter 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 2-2000Chapter 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 2-2001Chapter 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 2-2002Chapter 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 2-2003Chapter 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 2-2004Chapter 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 2-2005Chapter 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 2-2006Chapter 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 2-2007Chapter 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 2-2008Chapter 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 2-2009Chapter 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 2-2010Chapter 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 2-2011Chapter 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 2-2012Chapter 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 2-2013Chapter 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 2-2014Chapter 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 2-2015Chapter 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 2-2016Chapter 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 2-2017Chapter 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 2-2018Chapter 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 2-2019Chapter 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 2-2020Chapter 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 2-2021Chapter 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 2-2022Chapter 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 2-2023Chapter 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 2-2024Chapter 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 2-2025Chapter 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 2-2026Chapter 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 2-2027Chapter 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 2-2028Chapter 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 2-2029Chapter 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 2-2030Chapter 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 2-2031Chapter 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 2-2032Chapter 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 2-2033Chapter 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 2-2034Chapter 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 2-2035Chapter 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-pointsurface 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 2-2036Chapter 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 2-2037Chapter 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 2-2038Chapter 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 2-2039Chapter 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 easiestto 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 2-2040Chapter 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 2-2041Chapter 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 2-2042Chapter 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 2-2043Chapter 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 2-2044Chapter 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 2-2045Chapter 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 2-2046Chapter 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 2-2047Chapter 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 2-2048Chapter 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 2-2049Chapter 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 2-2050Chapter 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 2-2051Chapter 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 2-2052Chapter 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 2-2053Chapter 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 2-2054Chapter 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 2-2055Chapter 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 2-2056Chapter 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 2-2057Chapter 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 2-2058Chapter 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 2-2059Chapter 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 2-2060Chapter 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 GrovesI 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 2-2061Chapter 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 2-2062Chapter 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 2-2063Chapter 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 2-2064Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Information

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2065Chapter 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 2-2066Chapter 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 2-2067Chapter 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 2-2068Chapter 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 2-2069Chapter 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 2-2070Chapter 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 2-2071Chapter 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 2-2072Chapter 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 2-2073Chapter 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 2-2074Chapter 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 2-2075Chapter 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 2-2076Chapter 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 2-2077Chapter 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 veryrestrictive 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 2-2078Chapter 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 2-2079Chapter 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 2-2080Chapter 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 2-2081Chapter 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 2-2082Chapter 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 2-2083Chapter 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 2-2084Chapter 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 2-2085Chapter 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 2-2086Chapter 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 2-2087Chapter 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 2-2088Chapter 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 2-2089Chapter 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 2-2090Chapter 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 2-2091Chapter 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 2-2092Chapter 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 2-2093Chapter 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 2-2094Chapter 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 2-2095Chapter 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 2-2096Chapter 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 2-2097Chapter 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 2-2098Chapter 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 2-2099Chapter 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 2-2100Chapter 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 2-2101Chapter 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 2-2102Chapter 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 2-2103Chapter 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 2-2104Chapter 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 2-2105Chapter 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 2-2106Chapter 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 2-2107Chapter 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 2-2108Chapter 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 2-2109Chapter 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 2-2110Chapter 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 2-2111Chapter 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 2-2112Chapter 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 2-2113Chapter 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 2-2114Chapter 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 2-2115Chapter 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 2-2116Chapter 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 2-2117Chapter 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 2-2118Chapter 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 2-2119Chapter 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 2-2120Chapter 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 2-2121Chapter 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 2-2122Chapter 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 2-2123Chapter 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 2-2124Chapter 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 naturalenvironments. 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 2-2125Chapter 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 2-2126Chapter 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 2-2127Chapter 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 2-2128Chapter 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 2-2129Chapter 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 2-2130Chapter 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 2-2131Chapter 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 2-2132Chapter 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 2-2133Chapter 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 2-2134Chapter 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 2-2135Chapter 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 2-2136Chapter 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 2-2137Chapter 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. CFbelieves 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 2-2138Chapter 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 2-2139Chapter 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 2-2140Chapter 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 2-2141Chapter 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 significantlyfrom 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 2-2142Chapter 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 2-2143Chapter 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 2-2144Chapter 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 2-2145Chapter 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 2-2146Chapter 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 2-2147Chapter 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 2-2148Chapter 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 2-2149Chapter 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, EPArequested 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 2-2150Chapter 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 2-2151Chapter 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 2-2152Chapter 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 2-2153Chapter 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 2-2154Chapter 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 2-2155Chapter 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 2-2156Chapter 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 2-2157Chapter 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 2-2158Chapter 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 2-2159Chapter 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 2-2160Chapter 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 2-2161Chapter 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 2-2162Chapter 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 2-2163Chapter 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 2-2164Chapter 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 2-2165Chapter 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 oneof 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 2-2166Chapter 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 2-2167Chapter 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 2-2168Chapter 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 2-2169Chapter 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 DNAfingerprinting. 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 2-2170Chapter 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 2-2171Chapter 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 2-2172Chapter 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 2-2173Chapter 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 2-2174Chapter 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 2-2175Chapter 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 2-2176Chapter 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 2-2177Chapter 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 2-2178Chapter 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 2-2179Chapter 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 2-2180Chapter 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 2-2181Chapter 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 2-2182Chapter 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 2-2183Chapter 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 2-2184Chapter 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 2-2185Chapter 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 2-2186Chapter 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 2-2187Chapter 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 2-2188Chapter 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 2-2189Chapter 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 2-2190Chapter 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 2-2191Chapter 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 2-2192Chapter 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 byJames 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 2-2193Chapter 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 2-2194Chapter 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 2-2195Chapter 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 2-2196Chapter 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 2-2197Chapter 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 2-2198Chapter 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 2-2199Chapter 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 2-2200Chapter 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 2-2201Chapter 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 billiongallons 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 2-2202Chapter 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 2-2203Chapter 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 2-2204Chapter 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 2-2205Chapter 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 2-2206Chapter 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 2-2207Chapter 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 2-2208Chapter 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 2-2209Chapter 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 2-2210Chapter 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 withEPA'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 2-2211Chapter 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 beingattained. 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 2-2212Chapter 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 2-2213Chapter 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 areference/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 2-2214Chapter 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 2-2215Chapter 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 2-2216Chapter 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 2-2217Chapter 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 2-2218Chapter 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 2-2219Chapter 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 2-2220Chapter 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 2-2221Chapter 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 2-2222Chapter 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 2-2223Chapter 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 2-2224Chapter 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 Floridanor 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 2-2225Chapter 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 2-2226Chapter 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 2-2227Chapter 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 2-2228Chapter 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 2-2229Chapter 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 2-2230Chapter 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 notedabove, 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 2-2231Chapter 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 differentcausal/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 2-2232Chapter 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 2-2233Chapter 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 2-2234Chapter 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 2-2235Chapter 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 2-2236Chapter 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 2-2237Chapter 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 2-2238Chapter 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 2-2239Chapter 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 2-2240Chapter 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 2-2241Chapter 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 2-2242Chapter 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 2-2243Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Informationeven 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 2-2244Chapter 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 2-2245Chapter 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 2-2246Chapter 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 2-2247Chapter 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 2-2248Chapter 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 2-2249Chapter 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 2-2250Chapter 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 hasrecognized: "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 2-2251Chapter 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 2-2252Chapter 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-responserelationships. 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 2-2253Chapter 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 2-2254Chapter 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 2-2255Chapter 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 2-2256Chapter 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 2-2257Chapter 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 2-2258Chapter 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 2-2259Chapter 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 2-2260Chapter 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 2-2261Chapter 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 2-2262Chapter 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 nutrientcriteria. 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 2-2263Chapter 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 2-2264Chapter 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 2-2265Chapter 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 2-2266Chapter 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 2-2267Chapter 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 2-2268Chapter 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 2-2269Chapter 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 2-2270Chapter 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 2-2271Chapter 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 2-2272Chapter 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 2-2273Chapter 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 2-2274Chapter 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 2-2275Chapter 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 2-2276Chapter 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 2-2277Chapter 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 2-2278Chapter 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 2-2279Chapter 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 2-2280Chapter 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 2-2281Chapter 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 2-2282Chapter 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 2-2283Chapter 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 2-2284Chapter 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 2-2285Chapter 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 2-2286Chapter 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 2-2287Chapter 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 defensibleapproach 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 2-2288Chapter 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 2-2289Chapter 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 2-2290Chapter 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 thatwill 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 2-2291Chapter 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 2-2292Chapter 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 2-2293Chapter 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 SpringsEPA 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 2-2294Chapter 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 2-2295Chapter 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 2-2296Chapter 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 2-2297Chapter 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 2-2298Chapter 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 2-2299Chapter 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 2-2300Chapter 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 2-2301Chapter 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 2-2302Chapter 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 2-2303Chapter 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 2-2304Chapter 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 2-2305Chapter 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 2-2306Chapter 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 2-2307Chapter 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 2-2308Chapter 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 2-2309Chapter 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 2-2310Chapter 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 2-2311Chapter 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 2-2312Chapter 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 2-2313Chapter 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 2-2314Chapter 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 2-2315Chapter 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 2-2316Chapter 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 2-2317Chapter 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 2-2318Chapter 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 2-2319Chapter 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 2-2320Chapter 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 2-2321Chapter 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 2-2322Chapter 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 2-2323Chapter 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 2-2324Chapter 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 2-2325Chapter 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 2-2326Chapter 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 2-2327Chapter 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 2-2328Chapter 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 2-2329Chapter 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-numeric
nutrient-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 2-2330Chapter 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 2-2331Chapter 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 2-2332Chapter 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 2-2333Chapter 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 2-2334Chapter 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 2-2335Chapter 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 2-2336Chapter 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 2-2337Chapter 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 2-2338Chapter 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 2-2339Chapter 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 2-2340Chapter 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 2-2341Chapter 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 2-2342Chapter 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 2-2343Chapter 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 2-2344Chapter 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 2-2345Chapter 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 2-2346Chapter 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 2-2347Chapter 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 2-2348Chapter 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 2-2349Chapter 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 2-2350Chapter 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 2-2351Chapter 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 2-2352Chapter 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 2-2353Chapter 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 2-2354Chapter 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 literatureshows 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 2-2355Chapter 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 2-2356Chapter 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 2-2357Chapter 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 2-2358Chapter 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 2-2359Chapter 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 2-2360Chapter 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 2-2361Chapter 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 2-2362Chapter 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 2-2363Chapter 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 2-2364Chapter 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 2-2365Chapter 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 2-2366Chapter 2 - Comment Documents General Informationand 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 2-2367Chapter 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 2-2368Chapter 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 2-2369Chapter 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 2-2370Chapter 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 2-2371Chapter 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 2-2372Chapter 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 2-2373Chapter 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 2-2374Chapter 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 2-2375Chapter 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 2-2376Chapter 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 2-2377Chapter 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 2-2378Chapter 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’sWATER 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 2-2379Chapter 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 2-2380Chapter 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 2-2381Chapter 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 2-2382Chapter 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 2-2383Chapter 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 2-2384Chapter 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 2-2385Chapter 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 2-2386Chapter 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 2-2387Chapter 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 2-2388Chapter 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 2-2389Chapter 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 2-2390Chapter 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 2-2391Chapter 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 2-2392Chapter 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 2-2393Chapter 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 2-2394Chapter 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 2-2395Chapter 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 2-2396Chapter 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 2-2397Chapter 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 2-2398Chapter 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. ReferencesAmbrose, 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 2-2399Chapter 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 2-2400Chapter 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-summary
100109.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 2-2401Chapter 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 2-2402Chapter 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 2-2403Chapter 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 2-2404Chapter 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 2-2405Chapter 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 2-2406Chapter 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 2-2407Chapter 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 2-2408Chapter 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 2-2409Chapter 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 2-2410Chapter 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 2-2411Chapter 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 2-2412Chapter 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 2-2413Chapter 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 2-2414Chapter 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 2-2415Chapter 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 2-2416Chapter 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 2-2417Chapter 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 2-2418Chapter 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 2-2419Chapter 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 2-2420Chapter 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 2-2421Chapter 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 2-2422Chapter 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 2-2423Chapter 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 2-2424Chapter 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 2-2425Chapter 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 2-2426Chapter 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 2-2427Chapter 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 2-2428Chapter 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 2-2429Chapter 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 2-2430Chapter 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 2-2431Chapter 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 2-2432Chapter 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 2-2433Chapter 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 2-2434Chapter 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 2-2435Chapter 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 2-2436Chapter 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 2-2437Chapter 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 2-2438Chapter 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 2-2439Chapter 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 2-2440Chapter 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 2-2441Chapter 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 2-2442Chapter 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 inoligotrophic 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 2-2443Chapter 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 2-2444Chapter 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 2-2445Chapter 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 2-2446Chapter 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 2-2447Chapter 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 2-2448Chapter 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 2-2449Chapter 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 2-2450Chapter 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 2-2451Chapter 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 2-2452Chapter 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 2-2453Chapter 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 2-2454Chapter 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 2-2455Chapter 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 2-2456Chapter 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 2-2457Chapter 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 2-2458Chapter 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 2-2459Chapter 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 2-2460Chapter 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 2-2461Chapter 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 2-2462Chapter 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/cgi
bin/reports/search.asp for more information about FDEP’s TMDL audit reports.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2463Chapter 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 2-2464Chapter 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 2-2465Chapter 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 2-2466Chapter 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 2-2467Chapter 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 2-2468Chapter 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 2-2469Chapter 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 2-2470Chapter 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 2-2471Chapter 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 2-2472Chapter 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 2-2473Chapter 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 2-2474Chapter 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 2-2475Chapter 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 2-2476Chapter 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 2-2477Chapter 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/cgi
bin/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 2-247820004 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 2-2479Chapter 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 2-2480Chapter 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 2-2481Chapter 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 dateApril 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 2-2482Chapter 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 2-2483Chapter 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 2-2484Chapter 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 April22, 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 2-2485Chapter 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/aboutsbep
accomplishments.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 2-2486Chapter 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 April22, 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/aboutsbep
accomplishments.html.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2487Chapter 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 2-2488Chapter 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 2-2489Chapter 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 2-2490Chapter 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 2-2491Chapter 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 2-2492Chapter 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 adocument 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 2-2493Chapter 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 2-2494Chapter 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 2-2495Chapter 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 2-2496Chapter 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 2-2497Chapter 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 2-2498Chapter 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/article
1 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 2-2499Chapter 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 2-2500Chapter 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 2-2501Chapter 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 ProtectionAgency Water Quality Standards for the StatE! of Florida's Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule. Docket 10 No. EPA-HQ11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-2502Chapter 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 2-2503Chapter 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/meeting
arch.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 2-2504Chapter 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 2-2505Chapter 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 2-2506Chapter 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 2-2507Chapter 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 2-2508Chapter 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 2-2509Chapter 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 2-2510Chapter 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 2-2511Chapter 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 2-2512Chapter 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 2-2513Chapter 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 2-2514Chapter 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 2-2515Chapter 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 2-2516Chapter 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 2-2517Chapter 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 2-2518Chapter 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 2-2519Chapter 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 2-2520Chapter 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 2-2521Chapter 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 2-2522Chapter 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 2-2523Chapter 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 2-2524Chapter 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 2-2525Chapter 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 2-2526Chapter 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 2-2527Chapter 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 2-2528Chapter 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 2-2529Chapter 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 2-2530Chapter 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 2-2531Chapter 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 2-2532Chapter 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 2-2533Chapter 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 2-2534Chapter 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 2-2535Chapter 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 2-2536Chapter 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 2-2537Chapter 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 2-2538Chapter 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 2-2539Chapter 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 2-2540Chapter 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 2-2541Chapter 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 2-2542Chapter 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 2-2543Chapter 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 2-2544Chapter 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 2-2545Chapter 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 2-2546Chapter 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 2-2547Chapter 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 2-2548Chapter 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 2-2549Chapter 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 2-2550Chapter 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 2-2551Chapter 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 2-2552Chapter 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 2-2553Chapter 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 2-2554Chapter 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 2-2555Chapter 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 2-2556Chapter 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 2-2557Chapter 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 2-2558Chapter 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 2-2559Chapter 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 2-2560Chapter 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 2-2561Chapter 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 2-2562Chapter 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 2-2563Chapter 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 2-2564Chapter 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 2-2565Chapter 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 2-2566Chapter 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 2-2567Chapter 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 2-2568Chapter 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 2-2569Chapter 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 2-2570Chapter 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 2-2571Chapter 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 2-2572Chapter 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 2-2573Chapter 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 2-2574Chapter 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 2-2575Chapter 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 2-2576Chapter 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 2-2577Chapter 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 2-2578Chapter 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 2-2579Chapter 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 2-2580Chapter 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 2-2581Chapter 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 2-2582Chapter 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 2-2583Chapter 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 2-2584Chapter 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 2-2585Chapter 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 2-2586Chapter 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 2-2587Chapter 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 2-2588Chapter 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 2-2589Chapter 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 2-2590Chapter 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 2-2591Chapter 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 2-2592Chapter 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 2-2593Chapter 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 2-2594Chapter 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 2-2595Chapter 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 2-2596Chapter 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 2-2597Chapter 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 2-2598Chapter 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 2-2599Chapter 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 2-2600Chapter 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 2-2601Chapter 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 2-2602Chapter 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 2-2603Chapter 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 2-2604Chapter 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 2-2605Chapter 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 2-2606Chapter 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 2-2607Chapter 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 2-2608Chapter 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 2-2609Chapter 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 2-2610Chapter 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 2-2611Chapter 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. Divisionof 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 2-2612Chapter 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 2-2613Chapter 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 2-2614Chapter 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