# CHAPTER 2 Issue Category: Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Rivers and Streams Pages 3048 - 3952

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 Rivers and Streams 

# III.C - RIVERS AND STREAMS No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary.


# III.C.1 - PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS Comment ID 0743.001.008

Author Name: Rossman D. Organization: DCR Services The State of Florida has worked hard to protect its rivers and streams. Floridians have invested millions to restore impaired watersheds and protect Florida's rivers and streams. Florida has worked hard to develop scientific-based principles and criteria to protect and restore Florida water bodies in equitable and cost-effective ways. 

# Comment ID 1296-1.001.009

Author Name: Drew H. Organization: Wood Cellulose Manufacturing Based on these points, Buckeye proposes the IPV & DPV for the Fenholloway River (WBIDs 3473A and 3473B) be based on the EPA approved TMDL, and that the IPV & DPV for the Econfina River (WBID 3402), being the established ecologic reference for the Fenholloway River, be based on existing nutrient concentrations in the Econfina River. Attached is an analysis by HydroQual, Inc. to aid in this effort (Exhibit 2). 

# Comment ID 1296-1.001.014

Author Name: Drew H. Organization: Wood Cellulose Manufacturing Buckeye operates a dissolving kraft pulp mill located in Taylor County, Florida, near Perry and discharges its treated wastewater into the Fenholloway River. After a distance of approximately 23 river miles, the Fenholloway River discharges into Apalachee Bay. As such, Buckeye will be significantly affected by the Instream Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) proposed in this rule.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3048Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.128

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute In summary, due to these deficiencies EPA's proposed criteria for streams do not meet the legal requirements of the Clean Water Act or the requirements of EPA's own technical guidance and should be withdrawn. 

# Comment ID 1645-1.001.008

Author Name: Griswold R. Organization: Destin Water Users The link between land activities and surface water impacts is not specifically identified in the discussion regarding lakes and streams, but it appears again later in the proposed rule as it applies to springs as well as Section I.B which includes non-point discharges. The following text links land based nitrogen application activities and nitrate pollution in springs: Section IIl.D. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida 's Springs and Clear Streams Paragraph I "As a result of human-induced land use changes, cultural practices and explosive population growth, there has been an increase in the level of pollutants, especially nitrate, in groundwater over the past decades. Because there is no geologic source of nitrogen in springs, all of the nitrogen emerging in spring vents originates from that which is deposited on land." Section C: Proposed numeric nutrient criteria for the State of Florida 's Rivers and Streams. The standard proposed for the panhandle regions for total phosphorus is 0.043 mg/l. At this time our testing laboratory has been certified at a method detection limit of 0.20 mg/l. While our laboratory can measure smaller concentrations, it cannot do so with any level of certainty. 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.079

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa Finally, EPA should substantiate their claim that there are no approaches currently available to infer any dose-response relationships in Florida streams. At minimum, it would be beneficial to provide descriptive plots that identify the potential limiting nutrient in these streams and the potential physical and biological factors that interact with nutrient loadings and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3049Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams concentrations to result in adverse conditions that threaten the full achievement of aquatic life use designations in Florida streams. This information was presented in some detail in the discussion of nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes in the EPA's technical support documents but was absent for Florida streams. For a complete discussion regarding the Cocoa's technical comments on the stream criteria in the Proposed Rule, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". 

# Comment ID 1770-1.001.041

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City Finally, EPA should substantiate their claim that there are no approaches currently available to infer any dose-response relationships in Florida streams. At minimum, it would be beneficial to provide descriptive plots that identify the potential limiting nutrient in these streams and the potential physical and biological factors that interact with nutrient loadings and concentrations to result in adverse conditions that threaten the full achievement of aquatic life use designations in Florida streams, This information was presented in some detail in the discussion of nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes in the EPA's technical support documents but Was absent for Florida streams. For a complete discussion regarding Plant City's technical comments on the stream criteria in the Proposed Rule, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.050

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County Finally, EPA should substantiate their claim that there are no approaches currently available to infer any dose-response relationships in Florida streams. At minimum, it would be beneficial to provide descriptive plots that identify the potential limiting nutrient in these streams and the potential physical and biological factors that interact with nutrient loadings and concentrations to result in adverse conditions that threaten the full achievement of aquatic life use designations in Florida streams. This information was presented in some detail in the discussion of nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes in the EPA's technical support documents but was absent for Florida streams. For a complete discussion regarding Seminole County's technical comments on the stream criteria in the Proposed Rule, please refer to Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.035

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3050Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville The City of Titusville conducted water quality monitoring in 1992 to evaluate the level of pollutant load discharged to the Indian River Lagoon. Comparison of those results with EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria shows that:

• 100% of phosphorus levels discharged from the northern portions of the City do not meet the standard (136-498 percent above the proposed standard);

• 44% of phosphorus levels discharged from the central portions of the City do not meet the standard (104 to 183 percent above the standard);

• 30% of nitrogen levels do not meet the standard (102 to 165 percent above the proposed standard). Original comment letter contains additional information in the table on page 15 of 39 titled EPA Stream/River Nutrient Criteria Comparison. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.044

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville Finally, EPA should substantiate their claim that there are no approaches currently available to infer any dose-response relationships in Florida streams. At minimum, it would be beneficial to provide descriptive plots that identify the potential limiting nutrient in these streams and the potential physical and biological factors that interact with nutrient loadings and concentrations to result in adverse conditions that threaten the full achievement of aquatic life use designations in Florida streams. This inforlIlation was presented in some detail in the discussion of nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes in the EPA's technical support documents but was absent for Florida streams. For a complete discussion regarding the City of Titusville's technical comments on the stream criteria in the Proposed Rule, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.045

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission Finally, EPA should substantiate their claim that there are no approaches currently available to infer any dose-response relationships in Florida streams. At minimum, it would be beneficial to provide descriptive plots that identify the potential limiting nutrient in these streams and the potential physical and biological factors that interact with nutrient loadings and concentrations to result in adverse conditions that threaten the full achievement of aquatic life use designations in Florida streams. This information was presented in some detail in the discussion of nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes in the EPA's technical support documents but was absent for Florida streams.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3051Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams For a complete discussion regarding auc's technical comments on the stream criteria in the Proposed Rule, please refer to Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". 

# Comment ID 1774.001.003

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida There is a high degree of natural diversity among streams and water bodies on our property. Some streams are listed as not meeting the criteria while others are listed as meeting the criteria. They all basically have the same management regimen so it is difficult to know whether the variation is man induced or a naturally occurring. I believe both are biologically healthy and meet all the uses of a Class III water body. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.030

Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior 2. On page 4192, the proposed rule indicates that all flowing waters in the Kissimmee Watershed (which drains into Lake Okeechobee) will have an in-stream protection value for Total Phosphorus of 0.107 mg/l. It is unclear in the documentation how Lake Okeechobee would be able to meet either a 0.040 or 0.050 mg/l Total Phosphorus criterion when the inflow standard is double the lake standard, and the average annual in-lake total phosphorus concentration has been greater than 0.10 mg/l since 1996 [as cited in RECOVER's 2009 Draft System Status Report (February 2010). 

# Comment ID 1885.001.011

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County Streams

- The Myakka River is the only major river in our area. It is a very dark system that has been altered but is perhaps among the most protected river systems in Florida. There are no wastewater discharges to the river and much of the watershed is State Park or under protected status. If the Myakka is presumed to be nutrient impaired by EPA the criteria should be scrutinized closely to ensure that sufficient scientific evidence supports the proposal. 

# Comment ID 1920-1.001.022

Author Name: Wise W.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3052Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 51. Besides reviewing the proposed nutrient criteria for Florida's streams published in the Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 16, 26 January 2010), I have studied a number of algal blooms that occurred in three major Florida rivers: the St. Lucie, Caloosahatchee, and St. Johns. All of these fall within the "Peninsula" region as defined in the document. Attached as Exhibit H (H1- H6) are photographs of algae blooms on those rivers along with the date of the photograph and phosphorus and nitrogen data from the STORET database for stations close to the algae blooms. It is my opinion that EPA's proposed nutrient criteria are not inappropriately stringent based upon nutrient concentrations that were present prior to and during the times of these algae blooms. Original comment letter contains additional information in Exhibit H, (H1- H6) photographs of algae blooms on those rivers along with the date of the photograph and phosphorus and nitrogen data from the STORET database for stations close to the algae blooms. See original comment letter. 

# Response Comment ID: 1474-1.001.128, 1769-1.001.079, 1770-1.001.041, 1771-1.001.050, 1773-1.001.045, 1772-1.001.044, 1772­ 1.001.035, 1774.001.003 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the Stream Condition Index (SCI) reference site selection method was arbitrary and simplistic. EPA has considered this and other comments. EPA notes that the reference set of streams used to derive the final criteria in the rule are different than the set of streams used to derive the proposed criteria, except in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). Other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference set of streams, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream set because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. As to the SCI reference site selection method, simplicity in and of itself is not generally an argument against a reference site selection method. The development of the SCI, used as the principal screening tool for the “biologically healthy” reference population, was not a simple process. The SCI incorporates a multitude of information in it, including rules for selecting least disturbed reference sites that were used to develop, score, and identify nutrient thresholds. Moreover, EPA disagrees that the method of selecting reference sites based on an SCI screen was arbitrary. EPA detailed in the TSD the lengthy, involved, scientifically defensible, and transparent process used to generate the multimetric index; a process that is based on well established EPA guidance and scientific principles. The bioassessment and bioindicator literature underlying the SCI is both broad and comprehensive. Similarly, the selection of an SCI threshold of 40 was not arbitrary, but rather based on two rigorous statistical analyses detailed in the TSD. EPA considered a variety of potential SCI endpoints, as detailed in the TSD, and concluded that a value of 40 was most defensible. EPA wanted to develop a reference selection process that was both defensible and clear. The process EPA proposed depended on easily replicable bioassessment results that are clear to identify and easy to use in selecting sites. The SCI also clearly responds to stressors, including nutrient stressors, as detailed in the TSD and citations therein. Other comments opposed the use of the SCI alone for site selection, arguing that natural conditions can influence the SCI tool performance including physical-chemical parameters such as velocity, conductivity, pH, temp, and DO which can act as natural

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3053Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams stressors. Natural variability does influence SCI scores, as reflected in the variability around minimally impacted reference sites SCI scores. EPA considered the influence of this natural variability explicitly in the selection of the SCI threshold and this consideration is described in great detail in the TSD appendices B-13 and B-14. There is also a great deal of information about human disturbance incorporated into the SCI score. For example, the development of the SCI included responsiveness to human disturbance gradients, including the Land Disturbance Index (LDI), in the selection, scoring, and threshold selection processes. So, the SCI scores inherently include considerations of human disturbance, and the selection of the threshold incorporates considerations of least-disturbed conditions. Lastly, the SCI was not used alone for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites. Other comments disagreed with the use of low dissolved oxygen as a basis to reject candidate reference sites because low oxygen may be a natural occurrence. EPA considered this and other comments. EPA retained the removal of sites listed by FDEP as impaired for dissolved oxygen for both the modified benchmark and SCI reference populations as detailed in the final rule and TSD. EPA rejected sites because of low dissolved oxygen where those sites had been included by FDEP on Florida’s list of impaired waters, pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA. FDEP is not required to include waterbodies on the section 303(d) list where it demonstrates that concentrations of dissolved oxygen were measured below the numeric criteria due solely to natural conditions. Without such a demonstration, EPA must rely on FDEP’s identification of impairment when considering whether to select candidate reference sites. Concerns related to FDEP’s section 303(d) list should be addressed through the 303(d) listing process, which is independent of the nutrient criteria development process. Similarly, any comments about the appropriateness of Florida’s dissolved oxygen criteria should be addressed in FDEP’s criterion development process and not the nutrient criteria process. Some comments objected to the rejection of WBIDs listed as impaired for mercury or coliforms. EPA did not exclude WBIDs that were listed as impaired for any constituent other than dissolved oxygen and nutrients. This is detailed in the draft and final rule and TSD. Lastly, with regards to reference site selection, some comments sought clarification on the SCI reference approach. EPA provided a lengthy and clear description of the straightforward process used for selecting the SCI Population reference sites, which included a detailed description of the development of the SCI itself, in section 2 of the proposed rule TSD. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3054Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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. A number of comments disagreed with the sufficiency of data used by EPA. EPA considered these and other comments. The first assertion was that EPA used limited data. EPA considered all available data of defensible quality. For both the proposed and final rule for streams, this included screening and evaluating water chemistry data from more than 11,000 samples from over 6,000 sites statewide, and evaluating biological data of more than 2,000 samples from over 1,100 streams. A review of these data is included in the TSD and data files were also made available to the public. A second assertion was that data were collected during a fewclimatically abnormal years. It is unclear what is meant by climatically abnormal as Florida is typified by highly variable interannual climatic conditions (see figure below with annual precipitation data). Biological data were collected from 2004 to 2008, a period which, according to precipitation data from the Florida Climate Center, included years with annual average precipitationabove the 75th percentile of long-term average annual precipitation, years with annual averages below the 25th percentile of longterm average annual precipitation, and years with annual averages equal to the long-term average annual precipitation. Chemistry data were collected during an even longer period encompassing a similarly balanced number of variable climatic conditions. EPA concludes from this that the data used to derive numeric nutrient criteria incorporate the full range of hydrologic conditions representative of the variability typically observed in Florida including high, low and average conditions and that the range of conditions represented by the data actually reinforces the defensibility of the resultant criteria. There were comments that weighting or averaging was needed when using data from multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. In response to this and similar comments, EPA considered the autocorrelation issues involved in using site averages for sites located closely in space and explored the use of WBID averages. For the final rule, EPA has decided to use WBID averages instead of site averages, which reduces the effect of spatial autocorrelation. The reanalysis and justification are detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. The supplemental notice included analyses of WBID based spatial units. Lastly, EPA received comment that the data used were of varied detection limits and methodologies and included unqualified data. All the data used were verified by FDEPs approved Data Useability requirements as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA received several comments that disagreed with the criteria determination process using the reference condition approach. EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s Benchmark Reference Approach, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream approach because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. The first comment within this general topic was that use of the upper bound of the distribution for “healthy” streams compromises the criteria. EPA considered several options for percentiles and incorporated the concern reflected in this comment into its consideration of which percentiles to use in the final rule. For the final rule, other than the West Central Region, EPA is using the 90th percentile of the modified Benchmark Approach WBID averages within each region because of EPA’s confidence in the screening of that reference population. In the West Central, EPA is using the 75th percentile of SCI approach WBID averages because of reduced confidence in the quality of sites within that population and the reduced sample size. The details of this decision and analysis are included in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA concluded that a reference population typified by either healthy biological conditions or least-disturbed conditions provides EPA with the confidence that these are least-disturbed sites and that the use of upper bound percentiles from this population to establish the criteria was acceptable. A second related comment was that no analysis had been provided to support the 75th percentile as an accurate statistic for defining the distribution of reference sites and that its selection was a policy and not technical decision. As

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3055Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams stated above, in response to this and similar comments, EPA revisited the percentile selection process and decided on the percentiles indicated above. EPA defends the selection of an upper percentile of biologically healthy and least disturbed populations of values as technically defensible for protecting streams. Again, EPA provided a detailed argument of why that is so, related to the fact that the nutrient dynamics of such sites are, implicitly, consistent with that found in sites supporting designated uses. EPA also affirms that the 75th percentile is indeed a statistical characteristic of a population distribution. EPA agrees that the final decision to use a specific percentile does include the exercise of judgment, but that judgment is not arbitrary but rather is based on a consideration of risk to uses based on the degree to which the basis population represents conditions expected to support uses and a consideration of errors in making use attainment decisions based on the resultant values. This judgment is informed by technical information as well. Lastly, some comments asked why a 90th percentile was not used, as suggested by FDEP. Again, EPA has finalized streams criteria for most regions using the 90th percentile when there are sufficient data available to provide EPA with enough confidence that the reference site population is least-disturbed, and closely reflective of minimally impacted conditions. In the West Central Region, where fewer reference sites are available, EPA has continued to set the criteria at the 75th percentile because there is less confidence that these sites reflect least-disturbed conditions. In the absence of a clear, un-confounded stressor-response relationship, EPA elected to use a reference condition approach to develop protective numeric criteria. For the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as noted above for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified Benchmarks population of reference sites.

Comment ID: 1774-001.003 Response: EPA received comments disagreeing with how the Agency decided to classify streams into Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWRs). EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, EPA has decided to split the Panhandle Region into West and East regions and to restrict the size of the West Central (previously Bone Valley) Region. There were several comments related to intraregional classification. The first comment was that the approach for regionalization was too broad, that criteria will not protect the diversity and unique characteristics of waters that vary within regions, and that site-specific studies and criteria would account for more variability. As outlined in the nutrient criteria guidance, EPA recognizes that classification aims to reduce as much natural variability within classes as possible. Such classification efforts must weigh the trade-off between specificity, which would be optimized if each site were considered separately, and resource requirements and data availability, which clearly limit how fine a classification is possible. EPA considered a variety of regionalization schemes and has decided on the regionalization described above and detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA believes the regionalization is protective of Florida streams since EPA considered the full range of variability in its selection of sites and captures that variability in its selection

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3056Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams of the SCI thresholds based on inter-site variability among reference sites and in its selection of the upper bound percentiles of the reference population.

A second comment related to stream classification was that 4th order streams are different from 1st order streams in structure and function and in responses to nutrient loads. EPA agrees that size can affect stream processes and EPA considered stream size, but did not find a compelling basis for differentiating criteria based on stream size for the final rule since stronger differences were attributable to interregional classes as detailed in the proposed rule and final rule TSDs. EPA would not rule out regional refinement in the future based on stream size should compelling evidence support such a change. The federal site-specific alternative criteria procedure established in the rule may be used for such changes when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. A third comment is that stream classifications should have been based on concentrations and not N:P ratios. EPA agrees that N:P ratios along should not be the sole basis for classification which is why EPA considered concentrations as well as N:P ratios in its classification and detailed this in the draft rule and final rule TSDs. There were also several comments related to interregional classification elements. Some comments argued that soil and geologic differences were related to P but not N and, therefore, were not appropriate bases for NWR for nitrogen. EPA considered many factors related to classification and considered several classification options. Clearly, there are differences among the regions with respect to geologically reactive P deposits, especially highlighted in differences between the North Central and West Central regions and other regions. EPA revisited the regionalization associated with the geologically reactive Hawthorn Group in response to these and other comments and selected the regionalization described above for both TP and TN, which is described in detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent. EPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion at this time. However, EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a color-TN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA’s analysis of the stream TN data indicated that the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than non-Panhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. Other comments suggested that geology was an appropriate basis for regionalization, but that biological comparisons should also be used to identify regional differences. EPA’s regionalization began with a framework developed by FDEP that was based on biology.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3057Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The FDEP effort considered bioregions from their bioassessment programs as one element in their classification framework. Not surprisingly, the final EPA NWR classification is similar to the bio-regionalization developed by FDEP for their SCI tool, with some obvious differences dictated by geological factors. Lastly, EPA received comments that nutrient availability is controlled by soil chemistry, geology, and hydrogeology and that classes should be based on these factors for areas with adequate supporting data. EPA agrees and considered all of these factors, data availability, and appropriate response characteristics in establishing the NWR classes. Soil chemistry reflects underlying geology, which was an element used by EPA in developing the NWRs. Similarly, EPA considered ecoregions which themselves rely heavily on geology, soil type, and hydrology. Importantly, however, EPA also considered trends in observed nutrient distributions to verify and guide classification. It is the behavior of nutrients that manifests the effects of the major classification drivers, so EPA relied on this to help guide final class selection.

Comment ID: 1296-1.001.014, 1645-1.001.008, 1885.001.011 Response: EPA also received comments related to implementation. The first theme within these comments was related to assessment errors and conflicts between biological conditions and impairment decisions which could result from EPA’s criteria. EPA has considered all these and other comments related to this first theme. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the Benchmark Approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula regions. This modified Benchmark Approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed landcover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. Because EPA has relied on this more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified in that region. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3058Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

In the same vein, EPA received comments arguing that, under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, some reference or pristine waterbodies would be deemed to be impaired. Some of this perception seems to have been the result of analyses by FDEP and others of the number of FDEP reference waterbodies that would not meet the proposed criteria. First, there are likely no pristine waterbodies, defined as that reflecting the original pre-human state, left in Florida. The impacts of centuries of human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere have made the existence of pristine conditions essentially extinct in Florida. Even Florida’s original benchmark site population, presented as pristine, contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor, however, EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered that several of FDEP’s benchmark reference sites were included on the State’s section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various reasons, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairments. The salient point is that any conclusion of the number of “reference” waterbodies that would be deemed impaired depends on a careful and accurate depiction of reference and the conclusions using the population originally presented by FDEP presented issues that were problematic. EPA is using a modified Benchmark Approach for its final criteria that addresses many of these problematic screening issues. That modified approach is described above and in more detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. Also related to this first theme, EPA disagrees with comments that assert impairment of reference sites based on error rate analyses described in the comments. EPA views the type of analysis suggested in the comment as inappropriate and flawed because these analyses proposed calculating error rates using traditional statistical assumptions about attainment and non-attainment. EPA observed that there are no true independent “attaining” or “non-attaining” populations upon which to test the criteria because criteria do not yet exist, therefore these tests are invalid. The concept of false positive and false negative rates is predicated on the assumption that an independent assessment of the attainment and non-attainment is available. For example, to estimate the false positive rate of a diagnostic test, physicians observe whether patients actually contract a disease. In the case of nutrient criteria, the reference distribution is the only means of defining attainment and non-attainment. Hence, any discussion of false positive or false negative rates is not relevant. Further under this first implementation theme, some commenters argued that some streams would meet the criteria yet still display unhealthy biological conditions and that, therefore, implementation of the criteria should require biological validation that waters attaining the criteria are in fact healthy. EPA agrees it is possible that some streams would meet nutrient criteria yet still display unhealthy conditions but disagrees with the reasons why and the implication. There are many stressors that threaten aquatic life. Nutrient criteria are meant to protect against the effect of elevated nutrients on aquatic life. The criteria cannot control for other stressors which may also result in unhealthy conditions. Moreover, it may be that some streams meet the criteria and still contain unhealthy conditions due to nutrients. The approach for criteria derivation used here could potentially result in nutrient impacts below the proposed criteria. EPA has attempted to minimize that risk with the approach used in the final rule based on stringent criteria, biological screens, and higher percentiles but it is not a guarantee that our generally applicable criteria are most appropriate for every individual stream. In a case where the proposed criteria are proven not to protect aquatic life from nutrient effects, then site-specific criteria can be set to provide more protective criteria. 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. Requiring independent validation of biological impairment would, ostensibly, invalidate

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3059Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the need for protective nutrient criterion to protect aquatic life. The last argument under the first implementation theme was that EPA’s proposed approach for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria assumed elevated nutrient levels are responsible for impairment when they may not be and/or that it is impossible to determine if designated uses will be protected. EPA disagrees that it is impossible to determine that elevated concentrations will impair uses or if uses will be protected by setting the final criteria. 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 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 decided to use the reference approach described based on the specific SCI approach in the West Central Region and the modified Benchmark Approach in all other regions, following EPA peer reviewed guidance for deriving criteria. Such an approach concludes that concentrations observed in least disturbed reference populations known to be unimpaired by nutrient impacts would continue to protect designated uses from nutrient impacts. The basis for this is articulated in the EPA nutrient criteria guidance documents. As noted above, the final rule provides flexibility for the any entity to submit SSAC for waterbodies where additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The second comment theme under implementation relates to the cost of regulation. Commenters argue that local and state governments will spend a lot of money to come up with site-specific criteria within the very broad regions established to set the proposed criteria and that this will squander resources that could be used to correct true impairments. EPA disagrees and believes the resultant criteria will be sufficiently protective across the broad NWRs and the criteria will identify true impairments, obviating the need for site-specific criteria except where necessary. Indeed, EPA expended great effort with the classification element to minimize the need for site-specific criteria. Where local and state government determines a SSAC is necessary to most appropriately address specific waterbodies, the development of those SSAC should cost roughly the same as what it would cost to develop the appropriate limits under the narrative nutrient criteria. The extent of impacts due to nutrient enrichment in Florida and across the nation is substantial. EPA agrees that the efforts to solve this pressing problem will involve an investment of resources. But EPA hopes all parties agree such investments are necessary to protect our vital resources from the pervasive effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution that is clearly evident in Florida and across the country. With regards to methodological issues, EPA did not consider detectable limits in setting the criteria and is not required to. However, the final rule criteria are well within the detection limits of standard methods. With regards to the Myakka in particular, the river drains a region that has experienced human disturbance, especially associated

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3060Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams with P mining. EPA affirms that point source discharges are not the only source of nutrient pollution and this has undoubtedly contributed to nutrient pollution in this river. In addition, as noted in this and other responses as well as in the proposed and final rule TSDs, EPA applied defensible techniques as recommended by national nutrient criteria guidance.

Comment ID: 1296-1.001.009 Response: EPA received comments that the TMDL process should be used to protect waterbodies from nutrient impairment and not the changing of water quality standards. EPA disagrees. EPA has made it a national priority to develop numeric nutrient criteria to protect designated uses of the nation’s waters given the compelling and present effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. The basis and process for this decision is well laid out in several documents, including the national nutrient criteria guidance documents. EPA agrees that the TMDL process will be an important component of the recovery of waters from nutrient enrichment, but TMDLs are developed once waters are placed on the CWA section 303(d) list for failure to meet water quality standards. The goal of the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations is to prevent waterbodies from becoming impaired, in part through establishment of water quality criteria established at levels that protect designated uses. Prior to the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Class III waters in Florida, TMDLs required for waters listed on the State's CWA section 303(d) List as impaired for nutrients or nutrient related parameters were developed utilizing targets based upon a translation of the existing narrative criteria. Those translations were typically based upon the best available data and information at the time, and involved limiting assumptions and potential consideration of attainment that are not necessarily appropriate for numeric criteria development under CWA section 303(c). The criteria included in this rule, once finalized become effective for the purpose of the CWA. The established criteria do not change or modify existing TMDL targets. However, these targets can be reviewed for consistency with the numeric criteria and submitted to EPA for consideration as SSACs if warranted.

Comment ID: 1794-1.001.030 Response: EPA received comments critical of evenness in the derivation of criteria across regions. The first comments suggested that differences in criteria depending across regions were unfair and punished regions that have been doing a good job of protecting their waters. EPA considered these comments and disagrees. For the proposed and final rules, EPA’s regionalization analysis did not consider effort expended to protect waters in determining the NWRs. The regionalization process is meant to reduce natural variability associated with geographic features important in determining instream nutrient concentrations, such as geology, hydrology, and soil types. There are certainly associations between human density, activity and water quality. But these associations do not factor into the regional classifications. Other comments expressed concern that Panhandle criteria were 2-4 times less than natural area concentrations. EPA considered this concern diligently and this is why the agency carefully identified sites for use in the reference condition approach that reflected least-disturbed and biologically healthy conditions. EPA argues that to the extent that samples from truly natural areas are reflected in the reference population, resultant criteria should minimize the risk of identifying these as impaired. In response to this and similar comments, EPA reconsidered classification that parts of the Panhandle appeared to have elevated nutrient concentrations due to natural geological factors. Consequently, the final rule regionalization splits the Panhandle into West and East regions to better reflect the natural differences across that region and reduce the errors expressed in these comments. EPA also received comment that the same standard should be set for the entire State so

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3061Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams those with lower criteria don’t have to pay additional costs of treatment. EPA reaffirms that the object of classification was to reduce natural variability associated with geographic features important in determining instream nutrient concentrations, such as geology, hydrology, and soil types. Moreover, under the Clean Water Act, EPA cannot consider economic factors in establishing criteria to protect designated uses, so the effective cost of treatment of polluted water was not considered in deriving the criteria. EPA also received comments about inconsistencies in NWR descriptions and maps. One comment was that the method for assigning streams to regions was not consistent between shapefiles for NWRs and the Appendix B-18 list of estuarine DPV watersheds. EPA notes that DPVs to protect estuaries are no longer being considered under this rule, but will consider these concerns in linking any future estuarine DPV calculations to the NWR stream coverages and will reconcile any disparities at that time. EPA also received comment that there were inconsistencies between text of the report and the TSD -- specifically with regards to the Peninsula and Palm Beach County. EPA delineated NWRs using WBID coverages that adhere to watershed boundaries and these watershed boundaries were the intended boundaries. EPA revisited the southern Peninsula boundaries in response to these and other comments and has attempted to reconcile these issues and to produce unified language across the final rule and final rule TSD documents. With regards to the Lake Okeechobee TMDLs and the instream criteria, prior to the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Class III waters in Florida, TMDLs required for waters listed on the State's CWA section 303(d) List as impaired for nutrients or nutrient related parameters were developed utilizing targets based upon a translation of the existing narrative criteria. Those translations were typically based upon the best available data and information at the time, and involved limiting assumptions and potential consideration of attainment that are not necessarily appropriate for numeric criteria development under CWA section 303(c). The criteria included in this rule, once finalized become effective for the purpose of the CWA. The established criteria do not change or modify existing TMDL targets. However, these targets can be reviewed for consistency with the numeric criteria and submitted to EPA for consideration as SSACs if warranted.

Comment IDs: 0743.001.008, 1920-1.001.022 EPA received a variety of positive comments that are acknowledged here. Most of these commenters argued that the proposed criteria were scientifically sound because they were based on biologically healthy streams and that this approach was better than least-disturbed based approaches. EPA agrees that the biologically healthy reference approach is scientifically defensible for criteria derivation and used that approach to derive criteria for the West Central NWR. EPA also considers its modification to FDEP’s least-disturbed based approach to be a valid approach for criteria derivation. Others commented that EPA’s nutrient criteria guidance for the approach used does not require proof of a specific stressor-response to establish criteria. EPA agrees. 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 also agrees with those who commented that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3062Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams criteria are required to restore and protect waters to unimpaired conditions.

References: 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. Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542. Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429. Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643-657. Cross, W.F., J.B. Wallace, A.D. Rosemond, and S.L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565. Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427. Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158. Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477. 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 production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142. Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368. Gaiser, E.E., J.C. Trexler, J.H. Richards, D.L.Childers, D. Lee, A.L. Edwards, L.J. Scinto, K. Jayachandran, G.B. Noe, and R.D. Jones, 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723. Lohman, K., J.R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3063Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835. Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117. Notestein, S.K., T.K. Frazer, M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G. S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386. Rosemond, A.D., P.J. Mulholland, and J.W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J.L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289. Slavik, K., B.J. Peterson, L.A. Deegan, W.B. Bowden, A.E. Hershey, J.E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939 - 954. Stelzer, R.S. and G.A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367. 

# III.C.1.Q.1 - PROPOSED NUMERIC NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS QUESTION 1 Comment ID 0509-4.001.001

Author Name: Garza, Jr. A. Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams in the Evaluation of Florida Benchmark Site Exceedance Frequency Relative to EPA’s Proposed In-stream Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) from the Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3064Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 0907-1.001.001

Author Name: Hilliard D. Organization: Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for Rivers from Analytical Report, SAC Environmental Laboratory Inc. FLDOH Certification # 84492, Invoice Number 10589 - Town of Yankeetown. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 0907-2.001.001

Author Name: Hilliard D. Organization: Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment regarding rivers from Analytical Report, SAC Environmental Laboratory Inc, FLDOH Certification# 84492, Invoice number 10877 - Town of Yankeetown. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 0907-3.001.001

Author Name: Hilliard D. Organization: Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for rivers from Analytical Report, SAC Environmental Laboratory Inc., FLDOH Certification# 84492, Invoice number 10720 - Town of Yankeetown. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 0907-4.001.001

Author Name: Hilliard D. Organization: Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for rivers from Analytical Report, SAC Environmental Laboratory Inc, FLDOH Certification# 84492, Invoice number 10720 - Town of Yankeetown. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 0907-5.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3065Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Hilliard D. Organization: Withlacoochee Area Residents, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for rivers from Analytical Report, SAC Environmental Laboratory Inc, FLDOH Certification# 84492, Invoice number 10720 - Town of Yankeetown. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 0942.001.013

Author Name: Reed K. Organization: Original comment letter contains additional information for streams in a website. See http://water.dep.state.fl.us/eswizard/esdata/pdfs/380.pdf for more information regarding streams. [7] http://water.dep.state.fl.us/eswizard/esdata/pdfs/380.pdf



# Comment ID 1217-5.001.001

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for natural runoff characteristics from Mosaic Fertilizer LLC. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1217-6.001.001

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams about stream monitoring data analysis from Mosaic Fertilizer LLC. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1217-7.001.001

Author Name: Voyles J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3066Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Instream Criteria Reference System Threshold from Mosaic Fertilizer LLC. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.016

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about rivers and streams in Attachment A ­ Overview of Major River's in Northwest Florida with Emphasis on Nutrient Quality focused on the northern panhandle of Florida from the Northwest Florida Water Management District's comments on the USEPA's proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria under the CWA in pages 5-11 of pdf. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.022

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about rivers and streams in Attachment B ­ NWFWMD Preliminary Review of SAGT SPARROW Model from the Northwest Florida Water Management District's comments on the USEPA's proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria under the CWA. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.023

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about rivers and streams in Attachment C ­ Summary of NW Florida FDEP Water Quality Assessments, from the Northwest Florida Water Management District's comments on the USEPA's proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria under the CWA. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.090

Author Name: Wiegand P.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3067Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about streams and rivers in Attachment 1 Evaluation of Periphyton-Nutrient Relationships in NCASI Long-Term Receiving Waters Study Data 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 1292-1.001.091

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about streams and rivers in Appendix 1 Supplementary Charts for Uncertainty Analysis 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 1292-1.001.094

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information about rivers and streams in studies showing that the molecular form of nutrients is an important determinant of their influence on water and biomass chemistry. The literature is replete with studies showing that the molecular form of nutrients is an important determinant of their influence on water and biomass chemistry (e.g., Bradford and Peters 1987; Priha 1994; Priha and Langi 2000; Seitzinger et al. 2002; Bronk et al. 2006; Pehlivanoglu-Mantas and Sedlak 2006; Wiegner et al. 2006). 

# Comment ID 1294-1.001.003

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about streams and rivers entitled "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 836: Patterns and processes of variation in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in forested streams" (2001) 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 2-3068Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1294-1.001.004

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about streams and rivers entitled "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 923: Nutrient-algae patterns of periphyton and water column chlorophyll a in the Long-Term Receiving Water Study rivers: Variation with site, season, and year" (2006) 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 1294-1.001.005

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about streams and rivers entitled "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 926: The relationship between algal metrics and nutrients in the Long-Term Receiving Water Study rivers: Spatial and temporal variation" (2006) 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 1295-1.001.001

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Original comment letter contains additional as an attachment about streams and rivers entitled "NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 929: Nutrient diffusing substrate experiments in the Long-Term Receiving Water Study rivers and the Androscoggin River, Maine: Summary of findings" (2007) 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 1296-1.001.012

Author Name: Drew H. Organization: Wood Cellulose Manufacturing

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3069Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about streams and rivers entitled Exhibit 1: TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) For Nutrients In Fenholloway River, Econfina River Basin (WBIDs 3473A and 3473B) Taylor and LaFayette Counties, Florida prepared by US EPA Region 4, from comment letter for Buckeye Florida, L.P. (Buckeye) comment response. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1296-1.001.013

Author Name: Drew H. Organization: Wood Cellulose Manufacturing Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about streams and rivers entitled Exhibit 2: ECONFINA RIVER PROPOSED TOTAL NITROGEN AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CRITERIA for comment letter for Buckeye Florida, L.P. (Buckeye) comment response. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1418-2.001.001

Author Name: Dickerson J. Organization: JEA Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers entitled the Lower St. Johns River Main Stem TMDL prepared by Wildwood Consulting, Inc. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1418-3.001.001

Author Name: Dickerson J. Organization: JEA Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about streams and rivers entitled 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 developed by the Lower St. Johns River TMDL Executive Committee in cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.077

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3070Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. J. Literature Cited Dodds, WK and Welch EB. 2000. Establishing nutrient criteria for streams. Bridges, Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19(1):186-196.Hawkins, CP; Olson, JR; Hill, RA. 2010. The reference condition: predicting benchmarks for ecological and waterquality assessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29(1):312-343. Snelder, TH; Biggs, BFJ; Weatherhead, MA. 2004. Nutrient concentration criteria and characterization of patterns in trophic state for rivers in heterogeneous landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association February 2004. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.055

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information regarding how variables may influence a stream in a website link. See http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/bars/sas/training/index.htm for more information. 

# Comment ID 1672-2.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for rivers and streams as Table B9-2. Impaired Status of Potential Benchmark Sites by Unique WBID. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.003

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. Baker, L. A., P. L. Brezonik, and C. R. Kratzer. 1981. Nutrient loading - trophic state relationships in Florida lakes. Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3071Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Chapra, S. C. 1975. Comment on "An empirical method of estimating the retention of phosphorus in lakes" by W. B. Kirchner and P. J. Dillon. Water Resources Res. 11: 1033-1036. Jones and Lee, 1982. Recent Advances In Assessing Impact of Phosphorus Loads on Eutrophication- Related Water Quality. Water Research, 16. pp 502-515. Kirchner, W. B. and P. J. Dillon. 1975. An empirical method of estimating the retention of phosphate in lakes. Water Resources Res. 11: 182-84. Vollenweider, R. A. 1975. Input-output models with special reference to the phosphorus loading concept in Limnology. Schweiz. Z. Hydrol. 37: 53-84 Vollenweider, R. A. 1976. Advances in defining critical loading levels for phosphorus in Lake eutrophication. Mem. Ist. Ital. idrobiol. 33: 53-83. 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.006

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. Citations from some produced literature are included below to give EPA insight regarding the relevance of the phenomenon. 1) Phosphorus Dynamics in a Woodland Stream Ecosystem: A Study of Nutrient Spiraling, J. D. Newbold, J. W. Elwood, R. V. O'Neill and A. L. Sheldon, Ecology, Vol. 64, No. 5 (Oct., 1983), pp. 1249-1265 2) SUSPENDED SEDIMENT AND PARTICULATE PHOSPHORUS TRANSPORT AND DELIVERY PATHWAYS IN AN ARABLE CATCHMENT, GELBÆK STREAM, DENMARK, BRIAN KRONVANG, ANKER LAUBEL, RUTH GRANT, National Environmental Research Institute, Department of Streams and Riparian Areas, Vejlsøvej 25, DK-8600, Silkeborg, Denmark 3) CHOICE OF SAMPLING STRATEGY AND ESTIMATION METHOD FOR CALCULATING NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS TRANSPORT IN SMALL LOWLAND STREAMS, B. KRONVANG, A. J. BRUHN, National Environmental Research Institute, Department of Streams and Riparian Areas, Vejlsovej 25, 8600 Silkeborg, Denmark 4) Phosphorus Loss by Stream Transport from a Rural Watershed: Quantities, Processes, and Sources, Arthur H. Johnson, David R. Bouldin, Edward A. Goyette, and Anne M. Hedges 5) Chemical Processes and Transport of Phosphorus, Nelson, DW | Logan, TJ, Agricultural Management and Water Quality. Iowa State University Press, Ames Iowa. 1983. p 65-91, 3 fig, 3 tab, 117 ref.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3072Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 6) Phosphorus in flowing waters,Lowell E. Keup, Technical Advisory and Investigations Branch, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, United States Department of the Interior, Cincinnati, Ohio 45213, U.S.A. 7) Whole-stream phosphorus release studies: variation in uptake length with initial phosphorus concentration, Barry T. Hart, Paul Freeman and Ian D. McKelvie, Springer Netherlands, Volume 235- 236, Number 1 / July, 1992 8) Phosphorus Spiralling in a Woodland Stream: Seasonal Variations, Patrick J. Mulholland, J. Denis Newbold, Jerry W. Elwood, Leigh Ann Ferren and Jackson R. Webster, Ecology, Vol. 66, No. 3 (Jun., 1985), pp. 1012-1023 9) Transport and Transformation of Phosphorus in a Forest Stream Ecosystem, Judy L. Meyer and Gene E. Likens, Ecology, Vol. 60, No. 6 (Dec., 1979), pp. 1255-1269 10) Nitrogen and Phosphorus Attenuation within the Stream Network of a Coastal, Agricultural Watershed. Scott H. Ensign,* Sara K. McMillan, Suzanne P. Thompson, and Michael F. Piehler. Journal of Environmental Quality, V. 35, P. 1237-1247. 11) Fate of phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee watershed, Florida, USA: overview and recommendations. E.G. Flaig and, K.R. Reddy, 1995. Ecological Engineering, V. 5, P. 127-142. 12) Regulation of nutrient uptake in eutrophic lowland streams, Bjorn Gucker1 and Martin T. Pusch, Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Muggelseedamm 301, 12587 Berlin, Germany 13) Mass-transfer-limited nitrogen and phosphorus uptake by stream periphyton: A conceptual model and experimental evidence, Scott T. Larned,1 Vladimir I. Nikora, and Barry J. F. Biggs, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 8602, Christchurch, New Zealand 14) Evidence that hyporheic zones increase heterotrophic metabolism and phosphorus uptake in forest streams, Patrick J. Mulholland and Erich R. Marzolf, Jackson R Webster, Deborah R. Hart, Susan P. Hendircks, The American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Inc., 42(3), 1997, 443-451 15) Nutrient Loading - Trophic State Relationships in Florida Lakes. Baker L. A., P. L. Brezonik, and C. R. Kratzer. 1981. Water Resources Research Center, Publication No. 56. Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 16) Differences in Phosphorus and Nitrogen Delivery to The Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin, Richard B. Alexander*†, Richard A. Smith†, Gregory E. Schwarz†, Elizabeth W. Boyer‡, Jacqueline V. Nolan† and John W. Brakebill§. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42 (3), pp 822-830 17) Ohio Stream Management Guide. http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/tabid/4060/Default.aspx 18) RCA III Fate and Transport of Nutrients: Phosphorus Working Paper No. 8. Andrew Sharpley USDA, Agricultural Research Service National Agricultural Water Quality Laboratory Durant, Oklahoma October 1995 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov /

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3073Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 19) Natural Background Concentrations of Nutrients in Streams and Rivers of the Conterminous United States, Richard A. Smith, Richard B. Alexander, and Gregory E. Schwarz, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 20192 Environ. Sci. Technol., 2003, 37 (14), pp 3039-3047. 20) Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations - Book II, Streams and Rivers. Chapter 2, Nutrient/Eutrophication Impacts. (EPA 440/4-84-021). USEPA. 1984b. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.011

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. Jones and Lee, 1982. Recent Advances In Assessing Impact of Phosphorus Loads on Eutrophication- Related Water Quality. Water Research, 16. pp 502-515. 

# Comment ID 1675-1.001.014

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contain additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in Appendix A: Apalachicola Bay System Description (Pages 11-23) in Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1675-2.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Appendix C: Tampa Bay Estuary (Pages 1-8) in Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1675-2.001.002

Author Name: Brooks J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3074Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Appendix D: Nutrient Longitudinal Study of the Waccasassa River and Estuary and the Steinhatchee River and Estuary (Pages 9-32) in Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1676-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Appendix E: Nitrogen gradient maps for 16 Florida Estuaries in Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1677-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for estuaries in Figure 1. Total Nitrogen concentrations (mg/l) Nassau River and Sound WBIDs (for the 1996-2008 time period) and Figure 1. Total Nitrogen concentrations (mg/l) In Escambia River and Bay WBIDs (for the 1996-2008 time period). See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1678-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for estuaries in Figure 1. Total Nitrogen concentrations (mg/l) In Perdido River and Bay WBIDs (for the 1996-2008 time period), Figure 1. Total Nitrogen concentrations (mg/l) In St. Mary's River and Amelia Bay WBIDs (for the 1996-2008 time period), and Figure 1. Total Nitrogen concentrations (mg/l) In Ecofina Creek and St. Andrews Bay WBIDs (for the 1996-2008 time period) from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1679-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3075Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for estuaries in Figure 1. Total Nitrogen concentrations (mg/l) In Suwannee River and Bay WBIDs (for the 1996-2008 time period), Figure 1. Total Nitrogen concentrations (mg/l) In Hillsborough River and Tampa Bay WBIDs (for the 1996-2008 time period), Figure 1. Total Nitrogen concentrations (mg/l) in St Johns River and Bay WBIDs (for the 1996-2008 time period), and Figure 1. Total Nitrogen concentrations (mg/l) in Apalachicola River and Bay WBIDs (for the 1996-2008 time period) from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1680-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and river of Appendix F: Comparisons between ERF 2 and 1:100,000 NHD Plus reach mean velocities and actual velocities (Pages 1-22) from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1680-1.001.002

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and river of Appendix G: Analysis of Terminal Flag loads, flows, and concentrations comparison to Table 2-9 (Pages 23-26) from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1681-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in the TMDL Report Nutrient and Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for the Indian River Lagoon and Banana River Lagoon (sections 1.0 through 4.2.1) from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1682-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3076Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in the TMDL Report Nutrient and Dissolved Oxygen TMDLs for the Indian River Lagoon and Banana River Lagoon (sections 4.2.2 through Appendix F) from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1683-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in the TMDL Report Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients for the Lower St. Johns River - June 2008 from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1684-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in the TMDL Report Nutrient TMDL for the Caloosahatchee Estuary (WBIDs 3240A, 3240B, and 3240C) - April 29, 2009 (Section 1.0 through 4.3) from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1685-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in TMDL Report Nutrient TMDL for the Caloosahatchee Estuary (WBIDs 3240A, 3240B, and 3240C) - April 29, 2009 (Section 5.0) from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1686-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in TMDL Report Nutrient TMDL for the Caloosahatchee Estuary (WBIDs 3240A, 3240B, and 3240C) - April 29, 2009 (Section 5.0

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3077Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams through Section 7.0) from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1686-2.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in TMDL Report Nutrient TMDL for the Caloosahatchee Estuary (WBIDs 3240A, 3240B, and 3240C) - April 29, 2009 (Appendices and Response to Comments) from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1687-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in the APPENDICES FOR THE TIDAL CALOOSAHATCHEE NUTRIENT TMDL from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comments. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1694-1.001.012

Author Name: Buss J. Organization: City of Tallahassee Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in Attachment 1 ­ Panhandle Sites Ranked by Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen (mg/L) from City of Tallahassee, FL nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1734-2.001.001

Author Name: Dickenson J. Organization: JEA Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in The Lower St. Johns River Main Stem Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Process and Accomplishments prepared by Wildwood Consulting Inc. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3078Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1734-3.001.001

Author Name: Dickenson J. Organization: JEA Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in 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 by the Lower St. Johns River TMDL Executive Committee. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1758.001.002

Author Name: Cooper J. Organization: Protect Our Watersheds Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment for streams and rivers in the report by USGS entitled Hydrologic Conditions that Influence Streamflow Losses in a Karst Region of the Upper Peace River, Polk County, Florida. Supplemental attachments to document OW-2009-0596-1086. See pages 9-end of original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1876.001.002

Author Name: Alderson M. Organization: Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Original comment letter contains additional information in its reference list. References FDEP. 2005. Nutrient TMDL for Roberts Bay (WBID 1968D). Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. 55 pp Greening, H. and A Janicki. 2006. Toward reversal ofeutrophic conditions in a subtropical estuary: water quality and seagrass response to nitrogen loading reductions in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA Environmental Management Vol. 38, No.2, pp. 163-178. Janicki, AJ. and D.L. Wade. 1996. Estimating Critical Nitrogen Loads for the Tampa Bay Estuary: An Empirically Based Approach to Setting Management Targets. Technical Publication #06-96 ofthe Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental, Inc.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3079Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Lowrey, S. 1992. Physical and chemical properties - Bay water and sediment quality. Pp. 4.1

- 4.20, In: (P.Roat, C. Ciccolella, H. Smith, and D. Tomasko, eds.). Sarasota Bay: Framework for Action. Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program, Sarasota, FL. PBS&J. 2009. Status and trends in pollutant loads and natural resource responses in Sarasota Bay. Final Report SBEP to the City of Sarasota. l5p. CCMP. 1995. Sarasota Bay: The Voyage to Paradise Reclaimed. The Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan for Sarasota Bay. Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. Serviss, G.M. and S. Sauers. 2003. Sarasota Bay Juvenile Fisheries Habitat Assessment. Final Report to the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. 212 p. SWFWMD. 2008. Seagrass distribution from Tarpon Springs to Boca Grande. Final Report. Tomasko, D.A., C.A. Corbett, H.S. Greening, G.E. Raulerson. 2005. 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. Mar. Poll. Bull. 50: 797-805. Tomasko, D.A., M. Alderson and 1 Leverone. 2009. Response ofwater quality and seagrass coverage to large-scale reductions in nitrogen loads to Sarasota Bay. Oral Presentation to the 20th Biennial Conference ofthe Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation. November 1-5, 2009. Portland, OR. Other Relevant Literature Reviewed Dillon, K.S. and lP. Chanton. 2008. Nitrogen stable isotopes ofmacrophytes assess stormwater nitrogen inputs to an urbanized estuary. Estuaries and Coasts. 31: 360-370. Johansson, lO.R. 1991. Long-term trends ofnitrogen loading, water quality and biological indicators in Hillsborough Bay, Florida. Pp. 157-176. In: (Treat, S.F., and P.A. Clark, eds.). Proceedings. Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, FL. 528 pp. National Research Council, 1993. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Tomasko, D.A., Dawes, C.l, and M.O. Hall. 1996. The effects of anthropogenic nutrient enrichment on turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Estuaries 19: 448-456.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3080Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 2008-6.001.001

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 for streams and rivers in the Evaluation of Florida Benchmark Site Exceedance Frequency Relative to EPA's Proposed In-stream Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) from Florida DEP. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2381.001.002

Author Name: Beever L. Organization: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers through an FTP site. In addition, please include all of the Peace River Basin within the Bone Valley Eco-Region. There are some old phosphate mine lands that have been excluded and the eco-region as delineated in the proposal is not contiguous. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program has placed the shape file of the Peace River Basin on our FTP site. Directions to the FTP site are: Address: ftp://ftp.swfrpc.org User Name: chnep Password: chnepaccess Folder : Peace River Basin NOTE: If you have trouble opening the FTP site, on your main Internet Explorer Page - look on the horizontal menu bar for the "Page" dropdown tab and click on "Open FTP Site in Windows". Original comment letter contains additional data or information for Peace River Basin from Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 2399-20.001.001

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Crystal River/Kings Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. See original

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3081Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

comment letter. This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836.


# Comment ID 2399-21.001.001

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of RAINBOW RIVER Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan by Southwest Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836.



# Comment ID 2399-23.001.001

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment SWFWMD comments on EPA/FDEP analysis of geologic formations (e.g. Bone Valley) in the SWFWMD for determination of total phosphorus (TP) numeric nutrient criteria for flowing surface waters. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment submitted by David L. Moore, Executive Director, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Document EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-1836.1 

# Comment ID 2399-4.001.001

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Physical, Chemical and Vegetative Characteristics of Five Gulf Coast Rivers. See original comment letter. This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3082Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 2399-5.001.001

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Changes in the Physical, Chemical and Vegetative Characteristics of the Homosassa, Chassahowitzka and Weeki Wachee Rivers prepared for the Southwest Florida Water Management District. See original comment letter. This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836.



# Comment ID 2399-6.001.001

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Lake Regions of Florida by the EPA. See original comment letter. This attachment is supplemental information to comment ID 1836. 

# Comment ID 2404-2.001.001

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 of the ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY PLAN 2005. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

# Comment ID 2405-6.001.001

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 2-3083Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Evaluation of Florida Benchmark Site Exceedance Frequency Relative to EPA's Proposed In-stream Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

# Comment ID 2406-20.001.001

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 a table of WQBEL Documents. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

# Comment ID 2406-21.001.001

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 a list of WQBEL Documents. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1782.2 

# Comment ID 2410-1.001.001

Author Name: Long A. Organization: Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the report Characterizing Agriculture in Florida's Lower Suwannee River Basin Area. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3084Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 2410-7.001.001

Author Name: Long A. Organization: Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Trends of Nitrate Concentrations in Waters of the Suwannee River Water Management District, 2007. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2 

# Comment ID 2410-8.001.001

Author Name: Long A. Organization: Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Sources and Chronology of Nitrate Contamination in Spring Waters, Suwannee River Basin, Florida. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 2030.2 

# Comment ID 2416-1.001.001

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map titled Estero River- Freshwater Portion. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

# Comment ID 2416-2.001.001

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map titled Halfway Creek, Freshwater Portion. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3085Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 2416-3.001.001

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map titled Spring Creek, Freshwater Portion. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

# Comment ID 2416-4.001.001

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map titled Imperial River/Oak Creek, Freshwater Portions. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

# Comment ID 2416-5.001.001

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map titled Cocohatchee Creek, Freshwater Portion. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

# Comment ID 2416-6.001.001

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map titled Gordon Creek, Freshwater Portion. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3086Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

# Comment ID 2416-7.001.001

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map titled Freshwater Rivers in Southwest Florida. See original comment letter. Supplemental material for author ID 1482-1. 

# Comment ID 2416.001.001

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a map titled Neutral Freshwater Streams. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1482.1 

# Comment ID 2421-6.001.001

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 USEPA Region 4's PROPOSED TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) For Dissolved Oxygen and Nutrients In The North Prong Alafia River (WBID 1621E). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

# Comment ID 2421-8.001.001

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 a map with the lat/long for Nitrogen Points

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3087Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams in the Panhandle and Peninsual Regions of Florida. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2


# Comment ID 2421-9.001.001

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 map with the lat/long for Phosphorus Points in the Panhandle and Peninsual Regions of Florida. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1919.2 

# Comment ID 2422-10.001.001

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a table comparing EPAs and DEPs proposed instream critieria to sampling data. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

# Comment ID 2422-13.001.001

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of several photos of algal blooms in various rivers in Florida. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

# Comment ID 2422-5.001.001

Author Name: Wise W.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3088Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment from the Federal Register, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OW-FRL-6841-7] Nutrient Criteria Development; Notice of Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment ID 1920.2 

# Comment ID 2422-8.001.001

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 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 1920.2 

# Comment ID 2423-14.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment regarding streams and rivers entitled Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and Springs/Clear Streams by the FDEP. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

# Comment ID 2423-15.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment contains additional information as an attachment regarding Sarasota Bay in the powerpoint presentation entitled Sarasota Bay - implications for EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria by PBS&J. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3089Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 2423-24.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment about streams and rivers entitled Typical Water Quality Values for Florida's Lakes, Streams and Estuaries by Mark Friedemann and Joe Hand of the Standards and Monitoring Section of the Bureau of Surface Water Management. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2. 

# Comment ID 2424-1.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called Determining the Linkages for a Nutrient TMDL in a Stream Listed as Use-Impaired for Endangered Species by by Eldon C. Blancher II, Susan A. Sklenar, Richard A. Park, and J. Lynn Wood. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2424-15.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment called Determination of Eutrophic Conditions in the Cahaba River, AL by Using a Dynamic PLS Model by Robert Cox, Don Blancher and Manish Misra Toxicological and Environmental Associates, Inc. Department of Chemical Engineering University of South Alabama. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2424-5.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3090Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled Determining the Linkages for a Nutrient TMDL in a Stream Listed as Use-Impaired for Endangered Species by Eldon C. Blancher II, Susan A. Sklenar, Richard A. Park, and J. Lynn Wood. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-10.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Qualitative Percent Cover of Periphyton ­ 2001 Tributary and Other Sites in Jefferson County, Alabama - Cahaba River. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-11.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Periphyton / Chlorophyll a - 2001 Substrate Specific Tributary and Other Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-12.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Alkaline Phosphatase Activity - 2001 Tributary and Other Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-13.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3091Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Water Column Chlorophyll a - 2001 Tributary and Other Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-14.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Water Quality Parameters - 2001 Tributary and Other Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-15.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of REPORT ON FISHES AND MACROINVERTEBRATES OF THE UPPER CAHABA RIVER AND FOUR ADDITIONAL SITES in Alabama. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-16.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 1. Fishes collected at twelve sites in the upper Cahaba River, Fall 2002. Cahaba River at Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive (RD), Chace Lake Country Club (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB), Bibb County 26 (26), and Centreville (CE). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3092Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 2425-17.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 2. Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) for fishes collected at twelve sites in the upper Cahaba River, Spring 2002. Cahaba River at Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive (RD), Chace Lake Country Club (CL), Bains Bridge, Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB), Bibb County 26 (26), and Centreville (CE).. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-18.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 3. Macroinvertebrates collected (using JEFFCO method) at twelve sites in the upper Cahaba River, Spring 2002. Cahaba River at Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive (RD), Chace Lake Country Club (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB), Bibb County 26 (26), and Centreville (CE). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-19.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 4. Statistical analysis for macroinvertebrates collected (using JEFFCO method) at twelve sites in the upper Cahaba River, Spring 2002. Cahaba River at Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive (RD), Chace Lake Country Club (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB), Bibb County 26 (26), and Centreville (CE).. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3093Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 2425-20.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 5. Macroinvertebrates collected (using EPA method) at twelve sites in the upper Cahaba River, Spring 2002. Cahaba River at Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive (RD), Chace Lake Country Club (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB), Bibb County 26 (26), and Centreville (CE). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-21.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 6. Statistical analysis for macroinvertebrates collected (using EPA method) at twelve sites in the upper Cahaba River, Spring 2002. Cahaba River at Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive (RD), Chace Lake Country Club (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB), Bibb County 26 (26), and Centreville (CE). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-22.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 7. Macroinvertebrate metrics for twelve sites in the upper Cahaba River, comparing results of JEFFCO and EPA methods, Spring 2002. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-23.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3094Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 8. Fishes collected at tributary and other sites, Spring 2002. Turkey Creek at Goodwin Road (TC), Five Mile Creek at Lawson Road (5M), Cahaba Valley Creek at Indian Trail Road (CV), and Buck Creek near confluence with Cahaba River (BC). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-24.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 9. Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) for fishes collected at tributary and other sites, Spring 2002. Turkey Creek at Goodwin Road (TC), Five Mile Creek at Lawson Road (5M), Cahaba Valley Creek at Indian Trail Road (CV), and Buck Creek near confluence with Cahaba River (BC). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-25.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 10. Macroinvertebrates collected (using JEFFCO method) at tributary and other sites, Spring 2002. Turkey Creek at Goodwin Road (TC), Five Mile Creek at Lawson Road (5M), Cahaba Valley Creek at Indian Trail Road (CV), and Buck Creek near confluence with Cahaba River (BC). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-26.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 11. Statistical analysis for macroinvertebrates collected (using JEFFCO method) at tributary and other sites, Spring 2002. Turkey Creek at Goodwin Road (TC), Five Mile Creek at Lawson Road (5M), Cahaba Valley Creek at Indian Trail Road (CV), and Buck

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3095Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Creek near confluence with Cahaba River (BC). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-27.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 12. Macroinvertebrates collected (using EPA method) at tributary and other sites, Spring 2002. Turkey Creek at Goodwin Road (TC), Five Mile Creek at Lawson Road (5M), Cahaba Valley Creek at Indian Trail Road (CV), and Buck Creek near confluence with Cahaba River (BC). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-28.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table 13. Statistical analysis for macroinvertebrates collected (using EPA method) at tributary and other sites, Spring 2002. Turkey Creek at Goodwin Road (TC), Five Mile Creek at Lawson Road (5M), Cahaba Valley Creek at Indian Trail Road (CV), and Buck Creek near confluence with Cahaba River (BC). See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-29.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Table Table 14. Macroinvertebrate metrics for tributary and other sites, comparing results of JEFFCO and EPA methods, Spring 2002.. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3096Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 2425-3.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of Habitat Assessment - 2001 Cahaba River Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-4.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Qualitative Percent Cover of Periphyton

- 2001 Cahaba River Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-5.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Periphyton / Chlorophyll a - 2001 Substrate Specific Cahaba River Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-6.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Alkaline Phosphatase Activity - 2001 Cahaba River Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3097Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 2425-7.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Water Column Chlorophyll a - 2001 Cahaba River Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-8.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Water Quality Parameters - 2001 Cahaba River Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425-9.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Habitat Assessment - 2001 Tributary and Other Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2425.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the Periphyton Standing Crop in the Cahaba River, Alabama During Low-Flow Conditions, 2001 by TAI Environmental Sciences, A Division of Strand Associates, Inc. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3098Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2426-2.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment entitled Report on Fishes and Macroinvertebrates of the Upper Cahaba River and Three Additional Sites. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2426-25.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the MANATEE RIVER COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN prepared by The Southwest Florida Water Management District in Cooperation with Manatee County, City of Bradenton, and City of Palmetto. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2426-34.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of a powerpoint presentation entitled Stream Nutrient Criteria by Russ Frydenborg and Drew Bartlett of the FDEP Division of Resource Assessment and Restoration. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# Comment ID 2426.001.001

Author Name: Kovach C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3099Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: CF Industries Original comment letter contains additional information as an attachment of the REPORT ON FISHES AND MACROINVERTEBRATES AT FOUR SITES ON THE CAHABA RIVER, JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA. See original comment letter. Supplemental Material for Comment 2233.2 

# 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. 

# III.C.2 - METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING EPA’S PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR STREAMS Comment ID 0589.001.027

Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 12 . The proposed methodology eliminates all water bodies listed as "impaired". Following this logic yields a data set for streams and rivers that are not "impaired". It is illogical to deduce that all basins remaining were just under the impairment level. By definition the limit of the unimpaired values (upper value of the range) will be above the mean value of unimpaired water bodies. The logic utilized may be acknowledging this by substituting the 75th percentile of the remaining data as the acceptable NNC for rivers or streams. The 75% may also be an attempt at acknowledging the variability from basin to basin. Why not 90%? Why not the data's standard deviation? Is 75% sufficient or over correcting for data variations in location and time? The 75% of remaining data is a modification to a previous methodology established without the elimination of data. This current methodology therefore appears to be arbitrary and capricious.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3100Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0667.001.002

Author Name: Littlejohn C. Organization: At this point, the entire part of the work done for rivers and streams became, in my eyes, flawed science. DEP wasn't able to find a significant influence between nutrients and the health of these streams. And so we feel that you as our EPA threw Florida under the bus. First you required DEP to begin playing with the statistical studies, models, and numbers. You pushed them to use methodologies that they were uncomfortable using, until DEP now has numbers that I'm not so sure will stand up in a court of law. You yourself have admitted that your nutrient criteria are not based on biological responses to nutrients; so instead, you established a regional criteria based on a simplistic averaging method and then overlaid it with a model, a downstream model, to further reduce the criteria for streams flowing into our lakes and estuaries. 

# Comment ID 0726.001.002

Author Name: Price J. Organization: Rayonier The proposed federal nutrient rule represents an aggressive effort to address nutrient impacts in Florida waters. Parts of the rule are consistent with what the DEP has proposed and were well received by the state's technical advisory committee. However, other portions of the rule are problematic. It's now clear that the criteria for rivers and streams will result in the finding of impairment for the majority of Florida waters, including many that are considered pristine. This raises significant questions regarding the validity of EPA's statistical analysis and the SPARROW model.



# Comment ID 0974.001.001

Author Name: Kollias L. Organization: Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (District) has reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's, "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule," and attachments, published on Federal Register, Vol. 75, No . 16, Tuesday, January 26, 2010, and offers the following comments: 1 . Page 4192 states, "Notwithstanding natural environmental variability, there are well understood and documented analyses and principles about the underlying biological effects of TN and TP on an aquatic ecosystem. There is a substantial and compelling scientific basis for the conclusion that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects ; however, it is often unclear where precisely the impacts will occur. The value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3101Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams expected stream variability on a siteby- site, segment-by-segment basis (i.e., as in the course of interpreting a narrative WQS for WQBELs and TMDL estimations) is no longer necessary." In the case of nutrients in streams, assumptions regarding the biological effects of TN and TP on streams should not take the place of site specific data. It is clear that there are not obvious causal relationships between so-called "causal" variables and biological endpoints . In streams and canals with multiple stressors, attention should be directed to whether achieving these low nutrient criteria will result in any biological or other benefits to the stream since scarce public resources will end up being required for POTW expenditures to meet potentially unnecessarily stringent nutrient criteria. Initial investment in monitoring efforts to determine beneficial nutrient criteria will avoid wasting public money later to implement very low nutrient treatment that may not result in achievement of aquatic life uses. 

# Comment ID 0974.001.002

Author Name: Kollias L. Organization: Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 2. On page 4192 EPA acknowledges that, "Whereas, there are data available for water column chlorophyll a (phytoplankton) and algal thickness on various substrates (periphyton) for certain types of streams in Florida, there arecurrently no available approaches to interpret these data to infer scientifically supported thresholds for these nutrientspecific response variables in Florida streams." Given the lack of scientifically supported thresholds, it seems that the State of Florida was being prudent to have a narrative nutrient criteria that assessed waterways on a case-by-case basis. 

# Comment ID 0974.001.003

Author Name: Kollias L. Organization: Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 3 . Page 4193 describes that, "EPA used multiple measures of stream condition (or metrics) that describe the biological condition of the benthic invertebrate community. EPA then coupled the stream condition metrics with associated measurements of TN and TP concentrations to provide the basis for deriving causal variable numeric nutrient criteria." Was EPA able to identify data showing any direct causal effect of nutrients on benthic invertebrates? Why are stream condition metrics coupled with TN and TP rather than TN and TP being evaluated specifically with the benthic invertebrate community? 

# Comment ID 1009.001.006

Author Name: * * Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners Item III .C(2) - Methodology for Deriving EPA's Proposed Criteria for Streams: On page 73, EPA notes that the "value of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3102Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site-by-site, segment-by-segment basis ... is no longer necessary." Of course this is true and it is obvious that national criteria are even better from this perspective. Neither of these is a "valuable" reason for regional criteria if the criteria themselves are not scientifically valid at this scale. 

# Comment ID 1063.001.004

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida The proposed streams criteria were created based on scientifically sound rationale, using the total nitrogen and total phosphorus measurements, as well as stream condition indices from healthy rivers and streams. 

# Comment ID 1261-1.001.009

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Item IIl.C(2) - Methodology for Deriving EPA's Proposed Criteria for Streams: On page 73, EPA notes that the "value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site-by-site, segment-by-segment basis ... is no longer necessary." Of course this is true and it is obvious that national criteria are even better from this perspective. Neither of these is a "valuable" reason for regional criteria if the criteria themselves are not scientifically valid at this scale. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.003

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District Northwest Florida has some of the largest rivers in Florida and the greatest watershed area. The largest River in terms of flow is the Apalachicola River. The flows on the rivers and the loads delivered to coastal systems vary significantly from month to month and year to year. This natural fluctuation and pulsing is essential lo maintain balanced, healthy systems. Nutrient concentration criteria do not provide a comprehensive scientific metric for assessing the health of natural riverine systems in the Florida panhandle or downstream coastal systems. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.005

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3103Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District Total nitrogen is not necessarily a good indicator for anthropogenic impacts in the panhandle due to elevated natural concentrations. Extensive natural floodplains on rivers and streams in the panhandle contribute natural organic nitrogen which is the major nitrogen component in many watersheds. A good example is the New River, which originates in the Apalachicola National Forest in Liberty County. The river has total nitrogen levels above the proposed EPA criteria and has very little anthropogenic impacts. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.013

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 2.0 Use of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus as Measures of and Predictors for Stream Health and Potential for Impairment Summary EPA's reliance on total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) as the basis for numeric criteria in flowing waters is flawed. The agency's own analysis suggests, and the NCASI analysis clearly shows, that TN and TP concentrations in Florida's flowing waters are not predictive of stream health or stream impairments attributable to excessive nutrients. If EPA is intent on establishment of numeric criteria intended to protect flowing waters from impairments caused by excessive nutrients, EPA should focus its attention on nutrient forms that are bioavailable and thus can, when other site conditions allow, contribute to nutrient-related impairments. A substantial body of literature exists showing that (a) only bioavailable forms of nutrients contribute to algal growth, (b) refractory forms of organic nitrogen and organic phosphorus often comprise a large portion of the TN and TP in flowing waters and point source discharges, and (c) the conversion of refractory forms of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) to bioavailable N and P occur at rates that may be too low to contribute to the impairment of many flowing waters or downstream estuaries and thus are best considered on a site-specific basis. The agency's own analysis shows that inorganic forms of N have a higher correlation to nutrient-related water quality problems than does TN. Main Technical Findings

• Virtually all scientific studies show that only bioavailable forms of nitrogen and phosphorus contribute to aquatic plant growth that can cause impairment of waterbodies.

• Organic and particulate forms of nitrogen and phosphorus are generally not bioavailable.

• Organic and particulate forms of nitrogen and phosphorus (non-bioavailable forms) comprise a large and often majority fraction of the TN and TP in many flowing waters. • It is not surprising, therefore, that TN and TP are very poor indicators of stream condition (the apparent lack of such a relationship is shown in Section 4 of this report).

• If criteria are to be meaningful representations of ecological conditions and useful as water quality management tools

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3104Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams they should be predicated on variables such as soluble inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus that have a more direct link to the growth of aquatic plants. • Organic and particulate forms of nitrogen and phosphorus (non-bioavailable forms) comprise a large and often majority fraction of the TN and TP in some point and non-point discharges.

• Establishment of TN and TP water quality criteria will effectively mandate that discharges be managed using the same criteria.

• Use of TN and TP criteria in lieu of criteria based on bioavailable forms to limit wastewater discharges of nutrients will overestimate the potential for discharges to 8 impact receiving waters, and this overestimation of impact may force the use of point and non-point control measures that will have no measurable environmental benefit. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.014

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Specific Comments and Corresponding Science Analysis Instream protection values (IPVs) and downstream protection values (DPVs) for TN and TP are probably overprotective because they were derived with the inherent assumption that all forms of nitrogen and phosphorus contribute to water quality impairments in flowing waters and estuaries. EPA has neither recognized nor attempted to quantify the degree to which the proposed criteria may be overprotective in this regard. In nature and in wastewater, nutrients occur in numerous forms. These are generally classified as either soluble/dissolved or particulate, and as organic or inorganic. Dissolved forms of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus are usually considered to be readily available for uptake by biomass in aquatic systems (i.e., are bioavailable). Some portions of organic nitrogen and organic phosphorus may also be bioavailable or breakdown readily in the environment to yield inorganic and bioavailable nutrient forms. Provided other site characteristics are present, such nutrient forms can contribute to algal production in flowing waters, lakes, and estuaries. A significant portion of the nitrogen and phosphorus in waters, however, may exist in forms that are refractory, or very slow to degrade to nutrients usable by stream biomass. These forms generally do not participate in reactions that are linked to nutrient-related impairments. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.050

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 4.0 Lack of Science Supporting Use of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Criteria to Control Algae Growth Summary

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3105Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Contrary to conclusions made by EPA and FDEP, there is insufficient scientific support for the TP and TN criteria proposed by EPA for flowing waters. As a result, EPA and FDEP have mischaracterized the utility of the "relationships" shown between selected nutrients and response variables. The analyses presented in the technical support documentation do not provide evidence of predictable relationships between nutrients and EPA/FDEP selected response variables or the more obvious response variables that measure stream biomass directly. The finding of statistical significance in regression does not, by itself, indicate that a useful cause-effect relationship exists between two variables. Without predictable cause-effect relationships there is no evidence that nutrient reduction will result in predictable environmental improvement. A re-analysis of the Rapid Periphyton Survey data collected by FDEP and a review of the analysis and conclusions conducted by FDEP and adopted by EPA do not support the view that EPA's proposed nutrient criteria for TP and TN in flowing waters will lead to improved water quality management or reflect levels of nutrients associated with attainment of designated uses, at least with respect to algal growth. This evaluation indicates that numerous variables such as percent canopy cover, stream color, turbidity, and others tend to have stronger associations with water quality response variables than TP or TN. There is little scientific support for establishing TP and TN criteria in the range of concentrations being proposed. Further, this evaluation indicates that any future proposed criteria for flowing waters should incorporate the effects of stream color and percent canopy cover and perhaps other water quality and site characteristics. Main Technical Findings

• EPA criteria are based on the premise that, within the ranges seen in Florida flowing waters, TN and TP concentrations explain variability in stream condition and/or algal quantities.

• FDEP's analysis of TN and TP data for flowing waters, used as a basis for EPA's proposed criteria, provides little or no evidence that TN and TP concentrations are causal to stream condition or algal quantities.

• NCASI re-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.

• NCASI analyses and FDEP/EPA data analyses show that other water quality and site condition variables (e.g., canopy cover, stream color) are more important than TN and TP with respect to indicating water quality condition. 

# Comment ID 1304-1.001.036

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. TN and TP Are Inappropriate Water Quality Criteria EPA erred in selecting TN and TP as causal variables, as opposed to other classes of compounds. EPA's analysis suggests that TN and TP concentrations in Florida's flowing waters are not predictive of stream health or stream

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3106Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams impairments attributable to excessive nutrients. This is confirmed by the attached NCASI Report where the authors conclude that "[i]nstream protection values (IPVs) and downstream protection values (DPVs) for TN and TP are probably overprotective because they were derived with the inherent assumption that all forms of nitrogen and phosphorus contribute to water quality impairments in flowing waters and estuaries. EPA has neither recognized nor attempted to quantify the degree to which the proposed criteria may be overprotective in this regard." In addressing nitrogen and phosphorus as a cause of nutrient impairment, EPA should focus its attention on bioavailable forms of nutrients. A substantial body of literature shows: (a) only bioavailable forms of nutrients contribute to algal growth; (b) refractory forms of organic nitrogen and organic phosphorus often comprise a large portion of the TN and TP in flowing waters and point source discharges; and (c) the conversion of refractory forms of N and P to bioavailable N and P occur at rates that are often too slow to become usable by biomass in streams or estuaries. If EPA wishes to increase its chances of determining a statistically significant correlation between causal variables and accepted response variables, a logical first step would be to focus on the relative concentrations of bioavailable nitrogen and phosphorus compounds.


# Comment ID 1353-1.001.011

Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division 5-2) In Georgia, our wasteload allocation process for deriving ammonia limits in permits is based on the toxicity of the ammonia in the receiving stream using the EPA 1999 Ammonia Aquatic Life Criteria. The permit limits derived using these criteria result in instream ammonia concentrations that are well above the total nitrogen criteria proposed for Florida. Based on this biolgical response to ammonia, which is a component of total nitrogen, the proposed total nitrogen criteria are overly protective 

# Comment ID 1355-1.001.009

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Organic Nitrogen versus Total Nitrogen: Wetlands are usually sinks for inorganic nitrogen and net exporters of organic nitrogen. Both are captured in TN sampling but organic nitrogen has minimal eutrophying impact to water body health since only inorganic nitrogen is readily available for plant and algal growth. Streams draining wetlands could easily fail TN criteria while contributing little or no biologically available nitrogen. Therefore, in the presense of wetlands, EPA should consider substituting an inorganic nitrogen criteria for the TN criteria. Also, organic nitrogen is generally converted to inorganic by anaerobic microbial action. Since anaerobic conditions will commonly be found only in lakes and estuaries in Florida, the stream and canal criteria need only specify inorganic nitrogen. In addition, research by SJRWMD indicates that transport of inorganic N from muck deposits in the Indian

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3107Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams River Lagoon are not a significant source of nutrients to the water column (personal communications). Therefore, organic nutrients might also be excluded from downstream protective criteria. 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.017

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities 5. For many of the biological indicators affected by the in-stream concentrations of nutrients, no clear scientific consensus exists on target numeric values that result in impairment. 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.022

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities 10. In some cases, numeric nutrient limits result in water quality standards that are lower than the natural background concentrations of nutrients in streams. 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.042

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities 8. For obviously unimpaired streams, make certain that the values for the nutrient criteria are set equal to or higher than the background conditions. 

# Comment ID 1434-1.001.021

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors T18 III C(2)(a-d) The HSWCD agrees with the use ofthe Nutrient Watershed Regions and the FDEP developed Stream Condition Index as the primary tools for determining biological health of flowing streams. These criteria are largely silent on channelized portions of existing streams and how these criteria are applied to those reaches. The HSWCD requests that EPA assess the impact of such channelized reaches on the nutrient responses in the NWR and SCI, particularly for streams that have both natural and channelized portions. Additionally, even to a larger extent than with lakes, climactic

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3108Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams conditions influence stream health. The HSWCD requests that, as for lakes, the duration, and temporal and spatial frequency ofsample collection be more explicitly defined for streams, and that climactic conditions be considered in the calculation of ambient conditions. {P4192-4195, comments requested}. 

# Comment ID 1462-1.001.004

Author Name: Helfrich C. Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services The presentation also includes data stating that 1,000 miles of the 50,000 miles of rivers and streams are impaired by nutrients. This means that 98% of Florida's rivers and streams are not impaired by nutrients and therefore, the pictures depicting green waters are representative of 2% of Florida's rivers and streams, and many of the rivers and streams in that 2% already have TMDLs (which are numeric nutrient water quality standards) designed for the recovery of those water bodies. It is through the TMDL process that such problems are intended to be addressed and not by changing water quality standards. 

# Comment ID 1462-1.001.009

Author Name: Helfrich C. Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services The relationship between nutrients and stream biology requires site specific nutrient standards rather than unscientific and arbitrary regional values. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.118

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute The State has indicated that this reference waters approach to establishing stream nutrient criteria is only appropriate under State law if at least two changes occur: (1) at least the 90th percentile of the data must be used as the trigger value, and (2) there is an independent confirmation that nutrients are actually causing impairment in the stream. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and Springs/Clear Streams (draft March 12, 2010), at 29, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/fdep_comments_streams_criteria.pdf (hereinafter draft Florida Stream Comments). While these changes would reduce the arbitrary nature of the proposed rule, there remains no basis in the record to show that both nitrogen and phosphorus must be regulated to address any nutrient related impairments that may be documented under the State's preferred approach. At a minimum, there needs to be biological confirmation of impairment, a determination on which nutrient is causing the impairment, and a determination of which parameter should be controlled to eliminate the impairment. Also, as physical factors may control plant growth more

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3109Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams effectively in stream, the stream criteria should allow for changes in physical conditions to substitute for nutrient regulation (e.g., restore tree canopy is increased light is the primary factor stimulating increased plant growth). 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.121

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 2. EPA's approach ignores critical habitat factors. The SAB recently informed EPA that stream nutrient criteria, in particular, must account for the numerous physical/habitat factors that control whether or not excessive plant growth will occur. SAB Report, at 16, 24. Likewise, the National Guidelines require that criteria derivation reflect the critical factors that influence the effect the pollutant may have on aquatic life. National Guidelines, at 5, 18. The basic purpose of these requirements is to avoid significantly over or under regulating the pollutant. Id. EPA's supporting documents for this action identify the key factors controlling plant growth in streams. The document notes that "six principal factors may affect algal production in Florida streams, i.e., temperature, flow (velocity), turbidity (color), canopy cover, grazing and nutrients." TSD, Appendix B-11, at 1. However, EPA's approach completely ignores all physical factors that influence nutrient dynamics in streams, under the theory that somewhere downstream some adverse impacts may be manifested. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4192. Speculation on potential downstream effects is not a substitute for an adequate scientific basis demonstrating the need for particular criteria. Moreover, EPA has presented no information supporting the premise that to protect stream environmental from nutrient impacts, every inch of a stream must have minimal plant growth. There is no basis in the record for this position. Nutrients cause ecological shifts in water bodies, as a whole, over the long term. They do not cause acute impacts like toxics. If a several mile segment of a shaded stream had a 100 meter segment through an open meadow with increased plant growth, there are no biological data showing that the existence of this condition would, in any way, alter the basic ecology of the stream. In fact, it may enhance it. Likewise for lakes, the presence of elevated plant growth in a small poorly flushed embayment would not affect the overall lake ecology, which is the objective of nutrient control. If such information existed, one would expect that EPA's stressor-response evaluation would have focused on that condition as a documented impairment situation. EPA, however, has presented no such information. Unsupported speculation regarding possible downstream impacts is not a basis for failing to properly account for numerous factors that influence whether nutrients will cause any problem in a stream environment.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3110Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.125

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 6. No objective scientific basis provided for regulating nitrogen to prevent excessive plant growth in streams. As with lakes, EPA is recommending that both nitrogen and phosphorus be controlled to very low levels to avoid adverse impacts. There are no data in the record indicating that regulating nitrogen levels in streams is a generally required action. As with lakes, EPA's prior TMDL activities for streams have focused on TP reduction. Hundreds if not thousands of stream TMDLs approved by EPA have focused on phosphorus as the parameter of concern in regulating plant growth. The obvious implication of EPA's current proposal is that all of those prior TMDL actions were deficient. However, EPA has not documented that there will be any discernable benefit from TN reduction, beyond that obtained through TP reduction (where excessive plant growth actually exists). For the reasons previously explained under the lake's comments, the TN reduction requirements should be withdrawn. TN reduction should be a site-specific determination only made after careful analysis of the data and confirmation that TN reduction is required to prevent excessive plant growth. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.129

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute If EPA does not withdraw the stream criteria, a mechanism for verifying biological impairment of the water body must be built into the criteria. EPA's proposed criteria for Florida streams are similar to the criteria EPA developed in its 304(a) guidelines - they were developed on an ecoregion basis using reference waters. In the context of EPA's 304(a) criteria, EPA made it clear that they were starting points for states to develop more refined nutrient criteria. 66 Fed. Reg. 1671 (Jan. 9, 2001). EPA also has made it clear that "[i]t is not mandatory or expected that the reference condition so derived be translated directly into a criterion." 68 Fed. Reg. 557, 558 (Jan. 6, 2003). Finally, EPA has stated that states should: "Wherever possible, develop nutrient criteria that fully reflect localized conditions and protect specific designated uses...." EPA, Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations, Information Supporting the Development of Stat and Tribal Nutrient Criteria, Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion IX (EPA 822-B-00- 019) (December 2000), at iii. EPA should fulfill its own requirements and expectations by incorporating a mechanism for verifying biological impairment into it proposed criteria for Florida streams. Under this approach, EPA's criteria would become action levels that would trigger a verification of biological impairment by the State in a TMDL or permitting context. Once biological impairment is established, the criteria to be applied to a specific waterbody must then be based on multiple lines of evidence, not on reference conditions alone. As EPA has stated: "The frequency distribution approach is not used to establish criteria; rather it is used to determine one of the components of a criterion: the reference condition. This reference condition is one element of a criterion which should be considered along with historical background information, possible model extrapolations of data, and consideration of possible downstream impacts on those waters....." 68 Fed. Reg. at 558, see also SAB Report, at 18 (recommending a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3111Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams weight of the evidence approach using multiple methods); External Peer Review, at 44 ("However, the reference approach, in the absence of biological data, provides the weakest line of evidence for criteria development."). In developing the site-specific criterion, under this recommended approach, the State also must be given the discretion to decide, on a case-by-case basis, if regulating TN or TP or both is necessary to protect designated uses. 

# Comment ID 1481-1.001.022

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department III C(2)(a-d) Highlands County agrees with the use of the Nutrient Watershed Regions and the FDEP developed Stream Condition Index as the primary tools for determining biological health of flowing streams. These criteria are largely silent on channelized portions of existing streams and how these criteria are applied to those reaches. Highlands County requests that EPA assess the impact of such channelized reaches on the nutrient responses in the NWR and SCI, particularly for streams that have both natural and channelized portions. Additionally, even to a larger extent than with lakes, climactic conditions influence stream health. Highlands County requests that, as for lakes, the duration, and temporal and spatial frequency of sample collection be more explicitly defined for streams, and that climactic conditions be considered in the calculation of ambient conditions. {P4192-4195, comments requested} . 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.007

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida B. Proposed Streams Criteria The Conservancy of Southwest Florida believes that the proposed streams criteria are scientifically sound insofar as they rationally set criteria. In using the total nitrogen and total phosphorus measurements as well as Stream Condition indices from waterbodies thought to be healthy, EPA has created defensible standards for the four regions assessed (Panhandle, Bone Valley, Peninsula, and North Central/Suwannee). 

# Comment ID 1615-1.001.011

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Public Works Item lIl.C(2) - Methodology for Deriving EPA's Proposed Criteria for Streams: On page 73, EPA notes that the "value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site-by-site, segrnent-by-segrnent basis ... is no longer necessary." Of course this is true and it is obvious that national criteria are even better from this perspective.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3112Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Neither of these is a "valuable" reason for regional criteria if the criteria themselves are not scientifically valid at this scale. 

# Comment ID 1647-1.001.023

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association EPA's Proposed Criteria is Overprotective for Florida's Flowing Waters As evidenced by nutrient targets developed through the TMDL program, the numeric nutrient criteria proposed by EPA are overprotective for Florida waters. EPA's proposed TN and TP criteria for flowing waters were derived using the least site-specific approach offered as guidance for criteria development. Criteria developed through the TMDL program, which have employed extensive characterization of site-specific water quality and riparian characteristics, have resulted in criteria generally higher that that proposed by the EPA. This discrepancy is strong evidence that the EPA criteria are overprotective of some flowing waters in Florida (NCASI 2010). 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.025

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Statistical Issues Need to Use Data from the Past Five Years to Verify Impairment It is not clear from the analysis that USEPA used a properly verified data set, including whether determination of impairment was based on data collected during the past five years, as required by the IWR. The period or record used by USEPA for canals (greater than 35 years) creates significant problems of data comparability and therefore interpretation. Analytical methods and field data collection techniques have changed substantially over this period of time. Data ranging back over three decades should only of been used after careful examination of the data for major differences in Minimum Detection Limits (MDLs), field sampling methodologies and intervals, and field/lab QA/QC and digestion methods.

• Earlier digestion methods were not as thorough in liberating P and N from their matrices than present-day methods, resulting in lower relative values.

• Also earlier data would have been analyzed without the use of field duplicates, spikes, lab duplicates, reference samples, high and low check standards, and continuing check standards. In addition,

• USEPA combined both uncorrected and corrected chlorophyll data, resulting in a chlorophyll data set included noncomparable data. Inclusion of the earlier data results in a database that is more heterogeneous and difficult to interpret, and therefore

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3113Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams cause-effect relationships are far less reliable. Criteria based upon this period of record are impossible to defend and led EPA to arbitrary criteria.There are no less than seven methods listed in Standard Methods (21st ed., 2005) for the analysis of TP after all Pcontaining compounds have been hydrolyzed (via digestion) to ortho-P (same as SRP). In addition to those seven analytical methods for measuring ortho-P, there are three digestion methods given (i.e., perchloric acid digestion; sulfuric acid-nitric acid digestion; and persulfate digestion). Therefore, there could be a total of 3 x 7 = 21 different methodologies used over the 35 years. A lab could also have received certification for any method (including anything not listed in Standard Methods or by the USEPA) by developing and testing their own Standard Operating Procedure. Below are the seven TP and one ortho-P methods listed in Standard Methods: 1. Vanadomolybdophosphoric Acid Colorimetric Method (SM4500-P C) 2. Stannous Chloride Method (SM4500-P D) 3. Ascorbic Acid Method (SM4500-P E) 4. Automated Ascorbic Acid Reduction Method (SM4500-P F) 5. 5. Flow Injection Analysis of Orthophosphate (SM4500-P G) 6. Manual Digestion and Flow Injection Analysis for Total Phosphorus (SM4500-P H) 7. In-line UV/Persulfate and Flow Injection Analysis of Total Phosphorus (SM4500- P I) 8. Persulfate Method for Simultaneous Determination of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus (SM4500-P J) Note that Standard Methods distinguishes between TP analyses performed by different continuous flow analyses (i.e., flow injection analysis and segmented flow analysis (the automated method #4 above)); between manual (first 3 methods above) and continuous flow methods (nos. 4-7 above); and even between some of the digestion methods (nos. 7 and 8 above). Since the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) recognizes these different nuances of analyses, the implication is that NELAC feels that these different methods are significantly different from each other not to warrant lumping any of them together. In other words, each method is unique enough to produce a different result from that of any other method. The different method number designations for each of the TP methods indicates that differences exist in accuracy, precision, and MDLs among the methods. For example, there is no doubt that the earlier chemistries using vanadomolybdophosphoric acid and stannous chloride as reagents were not as sensitive or accurate as ascorbic acid, and the former reagents were also more prone to interferences. Standard Methods (21st ed.) lists a table showing this to be accurate. Inclusion of the earlier data results in a long-term database that is not possible to properly combine, and therefore cause-effect relationships are not reliable. Criteria based upon this period of record are impossible to defend and led EPA to arbitrary criteria. A requirement for development of the impaired water body list is to consider data collected during the past five years. Other agencies and laboratories in general may not be comfortable comparing data more than 10 years old (e.g. 1999­ 2009). 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.028

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3114Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 75th Percentile Value is Arbitrary. The choice of the 75th percentile value as a threshold to distinguish impaired from unimpaired water quality is meaningless, especially since both chlorophyll and Stream Condition Index (SCI) are not particularly good indicators of impairment due to nutrients. This approach constitutes a major flaw in the USEPA's development of nutrient criteria for streams and canals. The choice is an arbitrary value-based decision, often made to balance between type 1 and type 2 statistical errors. Such a decision should be made based on an assessment of the quality of the original data set. In the case of the chlorophyll criterion for canals, the analysis was based entirely on the distribution of concentrations observed in selected canals without consideration of the resources present in those canals. Chlorophyll was chosen as a surrogate measure of impairment, but no relationship was demonstrated between concentration of chlorophyll and impact on designated use. In the case of streams, the same 75% threshold was applied to reference sites that had been intensively studied and documented to contain good quality biological communities. No statistical analysis is presented to show that there is a correlation between TN and TP concentrations and the SCI, which would appear to be critically important if the SCI is to serve as the basis for the criteria. The frequency distribution plots in Figures 2.14-2.16 of the Technical Support Document (USEPA 2010) are not convincing and not statistically adequate to show a quantitative relationship exists between nutrient concentrations and the SCI. The decision to treat water quality data not associated with biological verification at the same threshold as reference site data that have verified data is both capricious and arbitrary. The USEPA developed the 75th percentile statewide estimate for chlorophyll in canals based upon only 14 water bodies. Seven region-parameter statistics were derived using fewer than 10 water bodies. In fact, the EAA sampling area contained only one water body. Sample size is also restricted by having an average of only three stations within a water body. The inadequacy of the statistics due to small sample sizes should not be compensated by setting the standard even lower (e.g. a 75th percentile instead of >= 90th percentile). The procedures used by USEPA to develop their proposed criteria, including the decision to declare the top 25% of "unimpaired" waters as impaired, will result in an excessive number of apparent exceedances. Waters that actually meet their designated use and that support perfectly healthy populations of fish and wildlife will be declared as impaired due the arbitrary decision to set the threshold at 75%, resulting in excessive expenditures of time, effort and money to address problems that do not exist. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.037

Author Name: Wilson C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3115Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Rejection of the 95th and 99th Percentiles The report states that, "Although the 95th and 99th percentiles were considered, FDEP determined that there was insufficient certainty in the inclusiveness of the 95th and 99th percentiles given the sparseness of data at the extreme end of the distribution." This description seems naïve since, by the very definition of the 95th and 99th percentiles, there should be very little data at these extreme ends of the distribution. This statement does not provide a scientifically valid rationale for rejecting the approach and should be considered as an arbitrary decision. Sample Size Requirements Sample size requirements depend upon the duration and frequency of the tests. If an annual mean is tested, then the mean should be based upon specification of sufficient samples to capture possible seasonal effects. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.048

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District No Threshold Concentration Was Identified to Protect Designated Uses. Because of the lack of this relationship between nutrient concentration and environmental response, no threshold concentration could be identified that would be protective of designated uses. Healthy balanced populations of flora and fauna occur in both oligotrophic and eutrophic systems, despite differences in the ambient nutrient concentrations. Models relating biological condition to human disturbance gradients across different water bodies suggest that the aggregate impact of multiple stressors can result in a measureable difference in biological assessment scores, when compared to water bodies with minimal disturbance (EPA 2010; Fore et al. 2007a, Snyder et al. 1998). However, it is unclear how individual systems will respond to reductions in nutrient levels over time, when a variety of factors influence biological health. For example, surveys of south Florida canals and data from FDEP and Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) using the Stream Condition Index (SCI) technique consistently have shown that macroinvertebrate communities are of poor quality, over a wide range of nutrient concentrations, due to habitat limitations (DB Environmental, Inc. 2009; FDEP 2001). Therefore, attainment of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria offers no reasonable assurance that the designated use will be met in the non-reference water bodies. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.049

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3116Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Nutrient Criteria Should be Based on Site-Specific Determinations. Nutrient criteria should be based upon existing site-specific determinations of actual concentrations that are associated with meeting designated uses and the presence of healthy fish and wildlife communities for canals and streams, as opposed to inferences from reference data. The proposed criteria have been derived from statistical analyses of data from reference systems, based on the declaration that the 25% of these reference sites that have the highest concentrations of nutrients are impaired. This is a declaration, not a hypothesis, so there is no attempt to explain, justify or test this statement. By contrast, FDEP developed the list of reference sites by extensive field studies and follow-up analyses of conditions at each site and made site-by-site determinations of the quality of resources and factors that influenced the communities present. For USEPA to arbitrarily consider any of these sites as impaired, when presented with the supporting data to the contrary is capricious (i.e. choosing to ignore evidence and replacing it with an opinion), and to declare that 25% of these sites (as opposed to 10, 20 or 75%?) are impaired is arbitrary. By this decision USEPA has chosen to reject site-specific data and scientific analysis in favor of a statistical delineation. Based on this approach, it seems that the initial efforts to develop SSAC should focus on the 25% of reference sites that are declared to be impaired. Hopefully, these sites have sufficient data available to provide a basis for SSAC, but there is not standard of proof provided to determine how much or what types of information is needed for reclassification.

• While the reference condition approach may be the only alternative available for developing criteria when data are too limited to describe site-specific responses to nutrients, this approach is grossly inferior when site-specific data are available to define truly protective criteria. FDEP and EPA have already developed approximately 80 nutrient-related TMDLs in Florida. Each of these TMDLs considers site-specific data and cause-effect relationships, and defines nutrientrelated targets specifically designed to attain the designated use. These targets are far more appropriate, and often vastly different, than the criteria currently being proposed (Dilks 2010).

• In summary, for sites where nutrient-related targets designed to protect the designated use have already been defined, EPA should replace their inferential "reference condition" approach to defining protective criteria with results from studies that more explicitly define protective concentrations. The results of these studies should be directly incorporated in the rule, and not required to be subject to an additional review procedure as currently proposed in the rule (Dilks 2010). 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.051

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Proposed TP and TN Criteria for Streams and Canals are Overprotective. USEPA's proposed TP and TN criteria for streams and canals (including both the water body criteria and the DPVs) are inherently overprotective. USEPA's 75th percentile method for determining the TP, TN and chlorophyll criteria and compliance, results in criteria that are dramatically overly protective of the designated use to the point of the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3117Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams recommended criteria being arbitrary. The result is that a high proportion of water bodies that fully meet their designated use will be declared as impaired. The proposed water body criteria contain both a magnitude and an allowable frequency of exceedance. The magnitude component is based upon USEPA's (2000) reference condition approach, and is designed to set the criterion value such that 75% of reference sites are in compliance with the criterion. The criteria also contain a duration component, stating that: 1) the criterion value cannot be exceeded on a long-term average basis, and 2) the criterion value cannot be exceeded more often than once in three years. Given the observed inter-annual variability in canal nutrient concentrations, the "once-inthree- years" component of thecriterion is more restrictive than the long-term average component. In simple terms, any water body that exhibits yearto-year variability would be expected to exceed its average concentration in half of all years. This means that water bodies that comply with the long-term average can easily be out of compliance with the once-in-three year frequency target. The reference condition approach as applied by USEPA will result in approximately 35% of Florida's reference streams and canals being falsely listed as impaired (FDEP 2010). By choosing a reference distribution approach, the USEPA proposal assures that a large portion of reference waters will fail the criteria while maintaining designated use. FDEP has calculated that over 20% of benchmark streams that have been verified to meet their designated use would exceed USEPA's Instream Protection Values (IPVs) for TP and TN. Since not all water bodies in Florida have been evaluated (53% of river miles as of 2008), additional areas with healthy balanced populations are likely to fail the criteria while maintaining their designated use. Any approach that mistakenly declares that more than one third of all reference sites are impaired is inherently arbitrary and will be prone to even larger errors when applied to non-reference sites, which will, in turn, lead to wasted efforts to remediate or develop SSAC for, sites that are not impaired. An extensive evaluation of the false positive rate (the probability of being declared out of compliance when a station is actually in compliance) for streams and canals in South Florida was conducted (InfoTech, 2010). The canal nutrient data provided by EPA was analyzed as an example to determine how consideration of compliance with the frequency component of the criterion would affect the Type I error (i.e. the percentage of "false positives" where unimpaired sites are considered impaired). The percent of years that each unimpaired WBID exceeded the proposed criterion was calculated to determine which WBIDs do not exceed the proposed criterion more frequently than once in three years. This analysis shows that only 62% of the unimpaired WBIDs would comply with the frequency component of the proposed phosphorus criterion, and only 64% of the unimpaired WBIDs would comply with the frequency component of the proposed nitrogen criterion. These findings show that the proposed rule is inconsistent with the USEPA (2000) guidance cited as the basis of the criteria. The guidance recommends that the criterion value be defined such that 75% of reference sites are in compliance with the criterion, while the proposed criteria result in a much lower percentage ­ nearly 50% more "false positives" than recommended. USEPA must either modify the proposed criterion values or modify the application of the frequency component to provide criteria that are consistent with the guidance it cites. USEPA's recommended method therefore results in overprotective criteria that can adversely affect the designated use if compliance is achieved (see previous discussion of statistical issues) Should the reference condition approach be maintained, it should be modified to require confirmation of actual impairment of a designated use, using an appropriate biologically based response variable(s) for the water body in question, before a site is considered impaired and not in compliance with the criteria, rather than allowing a site to be

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3118Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams defined as impaired based solely on nutrient concentrations. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.054

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Biological Resources Related to Nutrients Relating Nutrient Concentrations to Biological Response. Assuming that nitrogen and phosphorus are the principal drivers of water quality in streams and canals is not appropriate. Other factors such as flow, substrate, habitat, BOD-DO relationships and in-stream physical conditions may in many cases override nutrient effects. The predominant effects in streams and are likely hydraulic conditions. USEPA conducted only a very limited empirical review of cause/effect relationships between nutrients and macroinvertebrate communities and failed to establish biological impairment. USEPA failed to establish any biological response related to the 75th percentile. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.056

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Use of the LDI to Select Reference Sites The approach used by USEPA to select reference sites is inherently flawed. These indices were developed to reflect a variety of stressors on aquatic environments, but for the most part, they will not be suitable for indicating nutrient impairment, or for responding to a change in nutrient status. For example, the Land Development Index (LDI) value will not change with agricultural or urban Best Management Plan (BMP) implementation or other nutrient control measures. An often-cited relationship between LDI and nutrient loading (USEPA 2010 TSD Ch. 2 Figure 2-30) came from a study of the St. Marks Watershed in the Florida panhandle in which both LDI values and nutrient loading were calculated from land use data (Parker, 1989). Furthermore, the authors acknowledge that, "areal TP loading rates should be checked for regional validity", but the LDI-nutrient relationship has not been validated for statewide use. 

# Comment ID 1722-1.001.010

Author Name: Cunniff L. Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 9. The model used for the stream analysis was designed originally for large riverine systems. Florida streams are variable in size from 100 meters down to 2 meters across. Is the model able to accurately reflect smaller tributary systems?

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3119Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1725-1.001.009

Author Name: Nyhus S. Organization: Flaherty & Hood, P.A. on behalf of Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board Similarly, EPA's approach to criteria derivation identifies pristine reference streams as "impaired" regardless of (1) whether any real impairment exists, and (2) whether the impairment is due to natural conditions. Moreover, in most cases the natural geologic conditions make it such that the proposed phosphorus targets are impossible to attain even if they were correctly developed. Forcing communities to spend because of natural conditions is both unreasonable and improper under the CWA. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.010

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 3. Item III.C(2) - Methodology for Deriving Proposed Criteria for Streams. On page 73, the Agency notes that the "value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site-by-site, segment-by-segment basis ... is no longer necessary." Of course this is true and it is obvious that national criteria would be even "better" from this perspective. This is not a "valuable" reason for regional criteria if the criteria themselves are not scientifically valid at this scale and the cost of compliance is significant compared to the cost of one-time, site specific analysis. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.018

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 3. Evaluations of streams within the Tampa Bay watershed showed that nutrient concentrations within listed streams were not on the whole higher than nutrients within unimpaired streams. In fact in certain conditions the levels within unimpaired streams were higher. This identifies the level to which other causative factors (hydrology, canopy, sediments, stream modification) influence the local response to nutrients. The use of the blanket reference numbers, even broken down by region, without some reasonable tie to biological response will create listing issues and will increase the number of SSACs being completed, thus increasing workload rather than decreasing. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.042

Author Name: Taylor W.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3120Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: US Department of the Interior South Florida Canals EPA used a distributional approach for chlorophyll, TN and TP criteria, relying on the lower 25th %ile of all data together with the 75th %ile of lower impacted sites. While no exact quantitative method was specified, it appears that the 25th %ile data was given more weight and that there was an effort to keep the criteria below the 25th%ile of the EEA data. We recommend that EPA provide an explanation that justifies its approach. EPA states that a stressor-response approach was attempted, but not enough information is given to evaluate the attempt. We believe that a stressor-response approach is the best basis for setting water quality criteria. In fact, EPA uses a distributional approach to toxicity testing data to set water quality criteria for toxicants. Perhaps something similar could be done for nutrients in streams and canals. Please note that this would be distinct from a distributional approach based on ambient water quality measurements. It would be based on nutrient conditions associated with impaired uses from eutrophication, from the literature or from Florida. 

# Comment ID 1797-1.001.030

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau VIII. The EPA's Proposal for Florida's Rivers and Stream Understanding and preventing stream impairments related to nuisance algae and excessive aquatic plant growth is difficult due to the numerous variables that can contribute to this condition and the interrelationships between them. A further complexity is the fact that nitrogen and phosphorus (potential causal variables themselves) are required components of healthy aquatic systems. Numerous studies have shown that the accumulation of algae and other aquatic plants is governed by many stream characteristics including shade, bottom substrate, water depth, water velocity, water clarity, nutrient concentrations, temperature, and other characteristics.[59]

[59] 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, 6. (To view the technical report in its entirety, refer to comments submitted by Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.). 

# Comment ID 1803-1.001.004

Author Name: Bowman J. Organization: Nature Conservancy We support efforts to not only improve water quality, but also to establish, restore, and enhance important riparian and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3121Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams aquatic habitat. We are pleased efforts to date have recognized the differences in water quality throughout Florida by dividing the state into different regions with generally different underlying natural water quality levels. However, water quality of rivers and streams can still vary within each region, therefore, we would encourage you to further explore the use of some type 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 numerous other factors) ultimately influence biota in these systems. Biota such as macroinvertebrates (via DEP's Stream Criteria Index, SCI) could be further used to determine if these criteria are indeed effective in improving the biology and ecology of rivers and streams. Without this feedback it will be difficult if not impossible to determine if the proposed criteria are helping or hurting given water body. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.022

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 2. The EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects" and then go on to state that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary". This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be necessarily protective of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.042

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 2. EPA proposes to require spring runs and clear streams to meet the TN and TP targets for streams and rivers in addition to the nitrate-nitrite criterion. No supporting evidence has been provided in either the rule or the TSD that this piling on of additional numeric criteria will do anything to improve the health of these systems. It will, however, force communities, businesses, and state agencies to waste a great deal of money attempting to meet the requirement without corresponding benefit to the health of the stream. The nitrate-nitrite criteria as proposed, recognizes the nature of springs and how loads reach those springs through groundwater flow. The inclusion of phosphorus criteria, in addition, would not improve the overall health of these systems where it has been recognized that the need is for reductions in nitrogen. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.058

Author Name: Moore D.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3122Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Finally, regardless of the approach employed, SWFWMD recommends biological validation to confirm the status of streams that are classified as impaired based on nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 2018-6.001.011

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa 26. EPA explains that a host of potential effects including stream canopy, stream morphology, bottom type and the benthic community structure that interact with the concentration of nutrients to affect water quality conditions yet does not develop a criterion based on any physical or biological response. EPA should apply ecological concepts as a framework for establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida streams. Ecological principles such as the river continuum concept, which allows for the stream networks to be described by a continuum of biological responses linked by energy flow pathways based on stream order, should be used as the basis for establishing numeric nutrient criteria. 27. The EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects" and then go on to state that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary". This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be necessarily protective of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.064

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries SER believes that a univariate relationship for streams is not realistic and will result in the development of erroneous and inappropriate numeric nutrient criteria that will be a scientific and economic disaster for the State. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.075

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries In addition to the direct effects of organic content and oxygen status on the composition of stream benthic invertebrate communities, physical (habitat) factors, such as stream velocity and size of bottom substrate particles, are involved indirectly in that they affect the buildup of organic matter in bottom sediments. Concentrations of nutrients in stream

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3123Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams water are not a primary driving force for this process in most stream environments, however, even though they stimulate algal growth and thus the build-up of organic matter. This is because planktonic algae tend to be swept downstream by currents; streambeds typically are not long-term depositional environments for organic matter. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0589.001.027, 0667.001.002, 0974.001.002, 0974.001.003, 1292-1.001.050, 1370-1.001.017, 1474-1.001.118, 1474­ 1.001.121, 1481-1.001.022, 1715-3.001.025, 1715-3.001.028, 1715-3.001.048, 1715-3.001.054, 1715-3.001.056, 1722-1.001.010, 1794-1.001.042, 1805-3.001.022, 1805-3.001.042, 2018-6.001.011 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the Stream Condition Index (SCI) reference site selection method was arbitrary and simplistic. EPA has considered this and other comments. EPA notes that the reference set of streams used to derive the final criteria in the rule are different than the set of streams used to derive the proposed criteria, except in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). Other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference set of streams, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream set because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. As to the SCI reference site selection method, simplicity in and of itself is not generally an argument against a reference site selection method. The development of the SCI, used as the principal screening tool for the “biologically healthy” reference population, was not a simple process. The SCI incorporates a multitude of information in it, including rules for selecting least disturbed reference sites that were used to develop, score, and identify nutrient thresholds. Moreover, EPA disagrees that the method of selecting reference sites based on an SCI screen was arbitrary. EPA detailed in the TSD the lengthy, involved, scientifically defensible, and transparent process used to generate the multimetric index; a process that is based on well established EPA guidance and scientific principles. The bioassessment and bioindicator literature underlying the SCI is both broad and comprehensive. Similarly, the selection of an SCI threshold of 40 was not arbitrary, but rather based on two rigorous statistical analyses detailed in the TSD. EPA considered a variety of potential SCI endpoints, as detailed in the TSD, and concluded that a value of 40 was most defensible. EPA wanted to develop a reference selection process that was both defensible and clear. The process EPA proposed depended on easily replicable bioassessment results that are clear to identify and easy to use in selecting sites. The SCI also clearly responds to stressors, including nutrient stressors, as detailed in the TSD and citations therein. Other comments opposed the use of the SCI alone for site selection, arguing that natural conditions can influence the SCI tool performance including physical-chemical parameters such as velocity, conductivity, pH, temp, and DO which can act as natural stressors. Natural variability does influence SCI scores, as reflected in the variability around minimally impacted reference sites SCI scores. EPA considered the influence of this natural variability explicitly in the selection of the SCI threshold and this consideration is described in great detail in the TSD appendices B-13 and B-14. There is also a great deal of information about human disturbance incorporated into the SCI score. For example, the development of the SCI included responsiveness to human disturbance gradients, including the Land Disturbance Index (LDI), in the selection, scoring, and threshold selection processes. So, the SCI scores inherently include considerations of human disturbance, and the selection of the threshold incorporates considerations of least-disturbed conditions. Lastly, the SCI was not used alone for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3124Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Other comments disagreed with the use of low dissolved oxygen as a basis to reject candidate reference sites because low oxygen may be a natural occurrence. EPA considered this and other comments. EPA retained the removal of sites listed by FDEP as impaired for dissolved oxygen for both the modified benchmark and SCI reference populations as detailed in the final rule and TSD. EPA rejected sites because of low dissolved oxygen where those sites had been included by FDEP on Florida’s list of impaired waters, pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA. FDEP is not required to include waterbodies on the section 303(d) list where it demonstrates that concentrations of dissolved oxygen were measured below the numeric criteria due solely to natural conditions. Without such a demonstration, EPA must rely on FDEP’s identification of impairment when considering whether to select candidate reference sites. Concerns related to FDEP’s section 303(d) list should be addressed through the 303(d) listing process, which is independent of the nutrient criteria development process. Similarly, any comments about the appropriateness of Florida’s dissolved oxygen criteria should be addressed in FDEP’s criterion development process and not the nutrient criteria process. Some comments objected to the rejection of WBIDs listed as impaired for mercury or coliforms. EPA did not exclude WBIDs that were listed as impaired for any constituent other than dissolved oxygen and nutrients. This is detailed in the draft and final rule and TSD. Lastly, with regards to reference site selection, some comments sought clarification on the SCI reference approach. EPA provided a lengthy and clear description of the straightforward process used for selecting the SCI Population reference sites, which included a detailed description of the development of the SCI itself, in section 2 of the proposed rule TSD. 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. A number of comments disagreed with the sufficiency of data used by EPA. EPA considered these and other comments. The first assertion was that EPA used limited data. EPA considered all available data of defensible quality. For both the proposed and final rule for streams, this included screening and evaluating water chemistry data from more than 11,000 samples from over 6,000 sites statewide, and evaluating biological data of more than 2,000 samples from over 1,100 streams. A review of these data is included

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3125Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams in the TSD and data files were also made available to the public. A second assertion was that data were collected during a fewclimatically abnormal years. It is unclear what is meant by climatically abnormal as Florida is typified by highly variable interannual climatic conditions (see figure below with annual precipitation data). Biological data were collected from 2004 to 2008, a period which, according to precipitation data from the Florida Climate Center, included years with annual average precipitationabove the 75th percentile of long-term average annual precipitation, years with annual averages below the 25th percentile of longterm average annual precipitation, and years with annual averages equal to the long-term average annual precipitation. Chemistry data were collected during an even longer period encompassing a similarly balanced number of variable climatic conditions. EPA concludes from this that the data used to derive numeric nutrient criteria incorporate the full range of hydrologic conditions representative of the variability typically observed in Florida including high, low and average conditions and that the range of conditions represented by the data actually reinforces the defensibility of the resultant criteria. There were comments that weighting or averaging was needed when using data from multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. In response to this and similar comments, EPA considered the autocorrelation issues involved in using site averages for sites located closely in space and explored the use of WBID averages. For the final rule, EPA has decided to use WBID averages instead of site averages, which reduces the effect of spatial autocorrelation. The reanalysis and justification are detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. The supplemental notice included analyses of WBID based spatial units. Lastly, EPA received comment that the data used were of varied detection limits and methodologies and included unqualified data. All the data used were verified by FDEPs approved Data Useability requirements as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA received several comments that disagreed with the criteria determination process using the reference condition approach. EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s Benchmark Reference Approach, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream approach because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. The first comment within this general topic was that use of the upper bound of the distribution for “healthy” streams compromises the criteria. EPA considered several options for percentiles and incorporated the concern reflected in this comment into its consideration of which percentiles to use in the final rule. For the final rule, other than the West Central Region, EPA is using the 90th percentile of the modified Benchmark Approach WBID averages within each region because of EPA’s confidence in the screening of that reference population. In the West Central, EPA is using the 75th percentile of SCI approach WBID averages because of reduced confidence in the quality of sites within that population and the reduced sample size. The details of this decision and analysis are included in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA concluded that a reference population typified by either healthy biological conditions or least-disturbed conditions provides EPA with the confidence that these are least-disturbed sites and that the use of upper bound percentiles from this population to establish the criteria was acceptable. A second related comment was that no analysis had been provided to support the 75th percentile as an accurate statistic for defining the distribution of reference sites and that its selection was a policy and not technical decision. As stated above, in response to this and similar comments, EPA revisited the percentile selection process and decided on the percentiles indicated above. EPA defends the selection of an upper percentile of biologically healthy and least disturbed populations of values as technically defensible for protecting streams. Again, EPA provided a detailed argument of why that is so, related to the fact that the nutrient dynamics of such sites are, implicitly, consistent with that found in sites supporting designated uses. EPA also affirms that the 75th percentile is indeed a statistical characteristic of a population distribution. EPA agrees that the final decision to use a specific percentile does include the exercise of judgment, but that judgment is not arbitrary but rather is based on a consideration of risk to uses based on the degree to which the basis population represents conditions expected to support uses and a consideration of errors in making use attainment decisions based on the resultant values. This judgment is informed by technical information as well.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3126Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Lastly, some comments asked why a 90th percentile was not used, as suggested by FDEP. Again, EPA has finalized streams criteria for most regions using the 90th percentile when there are sufficient data available to provide EPA with enough confidence that the reference site population is least-disturbed, and closely reflective of minimally impacted conditions. In the West Central Region, where fewer reference sites are available, EPA has continued to set the criteria at the 75th percentile because there is less confidence that these sites reflect least-disturbed conditions. In the absence of a clear, un-confounded stressor-response relationship, EPA elected to use a reference condition approach to develop protective numeric criteria. For the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as noted above for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified benchmark population of reference sites. With regards to comments arguing the application of the River Continuum Concept to nutrient criteria development, it was not stated how the RCC should be applied specifically to developing nutrient criteria nor is EPA aware of any application of that biogeomorphic paradigm to stream criteria development.

Comment IDs: 1009.001.006, 1261-1.001.009, 1288-1.001.003, 1462-1.001.009, 1615-1.001.011, 1774-1.001.010, 1777-2.001.018, 1797-1.001.030, 1803-1.001.004, 2233-1.001.075 Response: EPA received comments disagreeing with how the Agency decided to classify streams into Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWRs). EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, EPA has decided to split the Panhandle Region into West and East regions and to restrict the size of the West Central (previously Bone Valley) Region. There were several comments related to intraregional classification. The first comment was that the approach for regionalization was too broad, that criteria will not protect the diversity and unique characteristics of waters that vary within regions, and that site-specific studies and criteria would account for more variability. As outlined in the nutrient criteria guidance, EPA recognizes that classification aims to reduce as much natural variability within classes as possible. Such classification efforts must weigh the trade-off between specificity, which would be optimized if each site were considered separately, and resource requirements and data availability, which clearly limit how fine a classification is possible. EPA considered a variety of regionalization schemes and has decided on the regionalization described above and detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA believes the regionalization is protective of Florida streams since EPA considered the full range of variability in its selection of sites and captures that variability in its selection of the SCI thresholds based on inter-site variability among reference sites and in its selection of the upper bound percentiles of the reference population.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3127Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

A second comment related to stream classification was that 4th order streams are different from 1st order streams in structure and function and in responses to nutrient loads. EPA agrees that size can affect stream processes and EPA considered stream size, but did not find a compelling basis for differentiating criteria based on stream size for the final rule since stronger differences were attributable to interregional classes as detailed in the proposed rule and final rule TSDs. EPA would not rule out regional refinement in the future based on stream size should compelling evidence support such a change. The federal site-specific alternative criteria procedure established in the rule may be used for such changes when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. A third comment is that stream classifications should have been based on concentrations and not N:P ratios. EPA agrees that N:P ratios along should not be the sole basis for classification which is why EPA considered concentrations as well as N:P ratios in its classification and detailed this in the draft rule and final rule TSDs. There were also several comments related to interregional classification elements. Some comments argued that soil and geologic differences were related to P but not N and, therefore, were not appropriate bases for NWR for nitrogen. EPA considered many factors related to classification and considered several classification options. Clearly, there are differences among the regions with respect to geologically reactive P deposits, especially highlighted in differences between the North Central and West Central regions and other regions. EPA revisited the regionalization associated with the geologically reactive Hawthorn Group in response to these and other comments and selected the regionalization described above for both TP and TN, which is described in detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent. EPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion at this time. However, EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a color-TN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA’s analysis of the stream TN data indicated that the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than non-Panhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. Other comments suggested that geology was an appropriate basis for regionalization, but that biological comparisons should also be used to identify regional differences. EPA’s regionalization began with a framework developed by FDEP that was based on biology. The FDEP effort considered bioregions from their bioassessment programs as one element in their classification framework. Not surprisingly, the final EPA NWR classification is similar to the bio-regionalization developed by FDEP for their SCI tool, with some obvious differences dictated by geological factors. Lastly, EPA received comments that nutrient availability is controlled by

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3128Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams soil chemistry, geology, and hydrogeology and that classes should be based on these factors for areas with adequate supporting data. EPA agrees and considered all of these factors, data availability, and appropriate response characteristics in establishing the NWR classes. Soil chemistry reflects underlying geology, which was an element used by EPA in developing the NWRs. Similarly, EPA considered ecoregions which themselves rely heavily on geology, soil type, and hydrology. Importantly, however, EPA also considered trends in observed nutrient distributions to verify and guide classification. It is the behavior of nutrients that manifests the effects of the major classification drivers, so EPA relied on this to help guide final class selection.

Comment IDs: 0726.001.002, 0974.001.001, 1370-1.001.022, 1370-1.001.042, 1474-1.001.129, 1647-1.001.023, 1715-3.001.037, 1715-3.001.051, 1725-1.001.009, 1836.001.058, 2233-1.001.064 Response: EPA also received comments related to implementation. The first theme within these comments was related to assessment errors and conflicts between biological conditions and impairment decisions which could result from EPA’s criteria. EPA has considered all these and other comments related to this first theme. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the Benchmark Approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula regions. This modified Benchmark Approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed landcover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. Because EPA has relied on this more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified in that region. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. In the same vein, EPA received comments arguing that, under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, some reference or pristine

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3129Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams waterbodies would be deemed to be impaired. Some of this perception seems to have been the result of analyses by FDEP and others of the number of FDEP reference waterbodies that would not meet the proposed criteria. First, there are likely no pristine waterbodies, defined as that reflecting the original pre-human state, left in Florida. The impacts of centuries of human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere have made the existence of pristine conditions essentially extinct in Florida. Even Florida’s original benchmark site population, presented as pristine, contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor, however, EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered that several of FDEP’s benchmark reference sites were included on the State’s section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various reasons, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairments. The salient point is that any conclusion of the number of “reference” waterbodies that would be deemed impaired depends on a careful and accurate depiction of reference and the conclusions using the population originally presented by FDEP presented issues that were problematic. EPA is using a modified Benchmark Approach for its final criteria that addresses many of these problematic screening issues. That modified approach is described above and in more detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. Also related to this first theme, EPA disagrees with comments that assert impairment of reference sites based on error rate analyses described in the comments. EPA views the type of analysis suggested in the comment as inappropriate and flawed because these analyses proposed calculating error rates using traditional statistical assumptions about attainment and non-attainment. EPA observed that there are no true independent “attaining” or “non-attaining” populations upon which to test the criteria because criteria do not yet exist, therefore these tests are invalid. The concept of false positive and false negative rates is predicated on the assumption that an independent assessment of the attainment and non-attainment is available. For example, to estimate the false positive rate of a diagnostic test, physicians observe whether patients actually contract a disease. In the case of nutrient criteria, the reference distribution is the only means of defining attainment and non-attainment. Hence, any discussion of false positive or false negative rates is not relevant. Further under this first implementation theme, some commenters argued that some streams would meet the criteria yet still display unhealthy biological conditions and that, therefore, implementation of the criteria should require biological validation that waters attaining the criteria are in fact healthy. EPA agrees it is possible that some streams would meet nutrient criteria yet still display unhealthy conditions but disagrees with the reasons why and the implication. There are many stressors that threaten aquatic life. Nutrient criteria are meant to protect against the effect of elevated nutrients on aquatic life. The criteria cannot control for other stressors which may also result in unhealthy conditions. Moreover, it may be that some streams meet the criteria and still contain unhealthy conditions due to nutrients. The approach for criteria derivation used here could potentially result in nutrient impacts below the proposed criteria. EPA has attempted to minimize that risk with the approach used in the final rule based on stringent criteria, biological screens, and higher percentiles but it is not a guarantee that our generally applicable criteria are most appropriate for every individual stream. In a case where the proposed criteria are proven not to protect aquatic life from nutrient effects, then site-specific criteria can be set to provide more protective criteria. 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. Requiring independent validation of biological impairment would, ostensibly, invalidate the need for protective nutrient criterion to protect aquatic life.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3130Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The last argument under the first implementation theme was that EPA’s proposed approach for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria assumed elevated nutrient levels are responsible for impairment when they may not be and/or that it is impossible to determine if designated uses will be protected. EPA disagrees that it is impossible to determine that elevated concentrations will impair uses or if uses will be protected by setting the final criteria. 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 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 decided to use the reference approach described based on the specific SCI approach in the West Central Region and the modified Benchmark Approach in all other regions, following EPA peer reviewed guidance for deriving criteria. Such an approach concludes that concentrations observed in least disturbed reference populations known to be unimpaired by nutrient impacts would continue to protect designated uses from nutrient impacts. The basis for this is articulated in the EPA nutrient criteria guidance documents. As noted above, the final rule provides flexibility for the any entity to submit SSAC for waterbodies where additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The second comment theme under implementation relates to the cost of regulation. Commenters argue that local and state governments will spend a lot of money to come up with site-specific criteria within the very broad regions established to set the proposed criteria and that this will squander resources that could be used to correct true impairments. EPA disagrees and believes the resultant criteria will be sufficiently protective across the broad NWRs and the criteria will identify true impairments, obviating the need for site-specific criteria except where necessary. Indeed, EPA expended great effort with the classification element to minimize the need for site-specific criteria. Where local and state government determines a SSAC is necessary to most appropriately address specific waterbodies, the development of those SSAC should cost roughly the same as what it would cost to develop the appropriate limits under the narrative nutrient criteria. The extent of impacts due to nutrient enrichment in Florida and across the nation is substantial. EPA agrees that the efforts to solve this pressing problem will involve an investment of resources. But EPA hopes all parties agree such investments are necessary to protect our vital resources from the pervasive effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution that is clearly evident in Florida and across the country.

Comment ID: 1797-1.001.030 Response: EPA received several comments related to the concern that nutrient 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3131Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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 IDs: 1434-1.001.021, 1481-1.001.022 Response: EPA received comments regarding the discrimination between canals and streams, channelized streams and natural channels, and the applicability of stream criteria to canals in the NWR and in South Florida. First 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. There is no 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. As for canals in South Florida, EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. EPA also received comments on ambiguities in language and clarification of language across the document. Some commenters suggested there was inconsistency in the use of names to describe NWRs and those to describe stream bioregions. EPA agrees that there was some inconsistency and has considered these comments in revising the rule and TSD. EPA points out that there may be inconsistencies between bioregions and final NWR since bioregions are related but distinct classifications, the former for developing the SCI bioassessment tool and the latter for nutrient criteria. Others noted that nutrients may be construed to refer to all forms of nutrients. EPA disagrees and has been explicit in stating that the criteria being set here apply to TN and TP to protect waters in the State from nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. Lastly, some commented on ambiguities in the language used to characterize how and where the proposed criteria are applied. EPA has considered this concern in revisions to the final rule and TSD and will be as explicit and consistent as possible.

Comment IDs: 1288-1.001.005, 1292-1.001.013, 1292-1.001.014, 1304-1.001.036, 1353-1.001.011, 1355-1.001.009, 1474­ 1.001.125

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3132Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Response: EPA received several comments related to the TN and TP criteria and their appropriateness for criteria setting. The first of these argued that TN and TP were not predictive of steam health or stream impairments attributable to excessive nutrients. EPA disagrees with this assertion. First, there was substantial evidence presented of the presence of nutrient related impairments in stream and river systems across the State to justify the linkage between TN and TP and stream impairments. Second, there is a well established, sizeable body of scientific knowledge including both experimental and observational studies that has unequivocally established a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses in streams, 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, Slavik et al. 2004, Cross et al. 2006, Mulholland and Webster 2010). A second comment argued that it may be more appropriate to use alternative approaches to address increased biomass in streams, such as restoring retention time or limiting light. EPA again disagrees and has continued to use a regional reference condition based approach for deriving the final criteria as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. First, the comment implies nutrients are not responsible for excess algal growth, which is not accurate. As noted in several other responses and detailed in the proposed and final rule and proposed and final rule TSD, there is ample scientific evidence that nutrient enrichment contributes to excess algal growth and other stream ecosystem impacts. Second, riparian and stream restoration that restore retention time and lower light levels, where natural, might reduce some excess algal biomass but would more importantly improve overall stream quality independent of nutrient effects. However, this restoration will have only limited effect on reducing nutrient pollution in streams, merely passing the effects on to downstream ecosystems, which EPA is also required to protect. Lastly, while algae are certainly an important avenue through which nutrients impact streams, they are not the only avenue. Microbes, such as bacteria and fungi, also increase their productivity in response to nutrient enrichment and this detrital enrichment can also alter stream ecosystems (Cross et al. 2006, Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002). Increasing retention time and woody inputs would provide a milieu to manifest the effects of microbial enrichment from excess nutrients on stream ecosystem condition. A third comment was that TN criteria should be adjusted for color and wetland presence. This comment was based on evidence presented of the relationship between percent wetland, color, and TN concentrations, more specifically organic N concentrations which can dominate the TN pool in some regions. This relationship would imply an effect of natural organic N sources on TN dynamics that could be controlled through classification using color. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent. EPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion at this time. However, EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a color-TN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA’s analysis of the stream TN data indicated that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3133Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams
the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than non-Panhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. A fourth comment in this general theme was that the criteria established for TN and TP are overprotective because the criteria assume all forms of N and P contribute to water quality impairments in streams. EPA has a national policy of setting nutrient criteria for TN and TP. The basis for this policy is documented in the national nutrient criteria guidance documents. The last set of comments in this theme argues there are no documented benefits of TN reduction beyond that obtained through TP reduction. EPA disagrees. There is ample evidence in the literature that TP and TN both limit productivity in stream systems (Elser et al. 1990, Lohman et al. 1991, Francoeur 2001, Stelzer and Lamberti 2001, Elser et al. 2007). Reductions in both TN and TP are necessary, therefore, to control effects of excess productivity. Moreover, in streams naturally elevated by reactive P geology in Florida, which are concentrated in certain regions but present in places along the length of Florida, N limitation is most likely present and N reductions in such systems would reduce nutrient impacts. For this reason, EPA is finalizing both TP and TN criteria.

Comment IDs: 1462-1.001.004, 1715-3.001.049 Response: EPA received comments that the TMDL process should be used to protect waterbodies from nutrient impairment and not the changing of water quality standards. EPA disagrees. EPA has made it a national priority to develop numeric nutrient criteria to protect designated uses of the nation’s waters given the compelling and present effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. The basis and process for this decision is well laid out in several documents, including the national nutrient criteria guidance documents. EPA agrees that the TMDL process will be an important component of the recovery of waters from nutrient enrichment, but TMDLs are developed once waters are placed on the CWA section 303(d) list for failure to meet water quality standards. The goal of the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations is to prevent waterbodies from becoming impaired, in part through establishment of water quality criteria established at levels that protect designated uses. Prior to the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Class III waters in Florida, TMDLs required for waters listed on the State's CWA section 303(d) List as impaired for nutrients or nutrient related parameters were developed utilizing targets based upon a translation of the existing narrative criteria. Those translations were typically based upon the best available data and information at the time, and involved limiting assumptions and potential consideration of attainment that are not necessarily appropriate for numeric criteria development under CWA section 303(c). The criteria included in this rule, once finalized become effective for the purpose of the CWA. The established criteria do not change or modify existing TMDL targets. However, these targets can be reviewed for consistency with the numeric criteria and submitted to EPA for consideration as SSACs if warranted.

Comment IDs: 1063.001.004, 1482-1.001.007

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3134Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Response: EPA received a variety of positive comments that are acknowledged here. Most of these commenters argued that the proposed criteria were scientifically sound because they were based on biologically healthy streams and that this approach was better than least-disturbed based approaches. EPA agrees that the biologically healthy reference approach is scientifically defensible for criteria derivation and used that approach to derive criteria for the West Central NWR. EPA also considers its modification to FDEP’s least-disturbed based approach to be a valid approach for criteria derivation. Others commented that EPA’s nutrient criteria guidance for the approach used does not require proof of a specific stressor-response to establish criteria. EPA agrees. 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 also agrees with those who commented that criteria are required to restore and protect waters to unimpaired conditions.

References: 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. Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542. Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429. Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643-657. Cross, W.F., J.B. Wallace, A.D. Rosemond, and S.L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565. Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427. Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158. Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3135Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

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 production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142. Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368. Gaiser, E.E., J.C. Trexler, J.H. Richards, D.L.Childers, D. Lee, A.L. Edwards, L.J. Scinto, K. Jayachandran, G.B. Noe, and R.D. Jones, 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723. Lohman, K., J.R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23. Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835. Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117. Notestein, S.K., T.K. Frazer, M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G. S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386. Rosemond, A.D., P.J. Mulholland, and J.W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J. L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289. Slavik, K., B.J. Peterson, L.A. Deegan, W.B. Bowden, A.E. Hershey, J.E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939-954. Stelzer, R.S. and G.A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3136Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367. 

# III.C.2.A - METHODOLOGY FOR STREAM CLASSIFICATION: EPA’S NUTRIENT WATERSHED REGIONS (NWRS) Comment ID 0601.001.004

Author Name: Kelley H. Organization: 3. In the panhandle, we are being punished for doing a good jab of protecting our surface waters by having extremely strict NNC MCLs. Under the rules, Florida is divided into five sub-regions. There are different NNCs depending upon the zone. The more existing impairment, the less strict the NNCs. Our region has much higher surface water quality compared to the other sub-regions. Our NNC MCLs are significantly lower, which makes them even harder to meet. 

# Comment ID 0644.001.006

Author Name: Janazzo J. Organization: Okaloosa County Commissioners We question why there are still TBDS in the rule, a lot of assumptions that arrive to the science for a very general region when they are site specific. Clearly, when you look at that map, the Panhandle is being held to a standard half of what the Tampa Bay metroplex is. We're a pristine area. I just told you 50 percent of our land is water and military ranges. That's a gross generalization that clearly deserves to be relooked at. We are attempting to roll back total nitrogen and total phosphate to pre-colonial times, back when Andy Jackson was still the governor. Clearly an impaired water can and does support abundant diversified biology. We see it every day. 

# Comment ID 0644.001.008

Author Name: Janazzo J. Organization: Okaloosa County Commissioners The proposed level has clearly penalized the Panhandle for starting with a very good water quality. This passes the budget impact to lower government agencies does not give us a guarantee for success, and it's a definition of unfounded mandate and your basic faulty logic. 

# Comment ID 0648.001.006

Author Name: Castile C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3137Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: I want to commend you all for recognizing the differences in the regions in Florida and recognizing the differences in streams and lakes and as well as estuaries. 

# Comment ID 0650.001.002

Author Name: Cox J. Organization: City of Tallahassee Our first major concern with this happens to be, and I've talked about this before, is the total phosphorus requirement for the Panhandle where we would require like an 80-percent, more than an 80-percent reduction in our stormwater. The standards for the Panhandle are lower than natural area stormwater runoff statewide. They're two to four times -­ our natural areas have two or four times the natural concentration that you're asking us to get to. Forty percent of the reference streams we're told by DEP, and that was confirmed by my staff, would exceed the flowing water standard, and that doesn't make me very optimistic. I think that a hundred percent of our urban area will require retrofitting if we go forward with this. I've been in the stormwater business for more than 30 years and, unfortunately, I can't say that I have a solution as to how we could get there, and that concerns me. 

# Comment ID 0730.001.003

Author Name: Fentress P. Organization: Lost Lake Groves I think the answer to cleaner water is not a cookie-cutter approach. As an example, 20 miles from our grove on the ridge we have a solid citrus and palm tree farm. Twenty miles -- 20 miles or 20 minutes, you go from sandy soil and swift mud to mucky soil and South Florida Water Management District. Yet, both of our farms are apparently in the EPA's Peninsula Watershed, and I don't understand how. Just to give you a little background, it can rain an inch on our grove on the sandy soils and we won't irrigate for two days. That same inch can fall 20 minutes away, we may not irrigate for a whole month. And I just ask you to please take that into consideration. 

# Comment ID 0739.001.007

Author Name: Robbins K. Organization: Entrix EPA assigns streams to five regions, including the Bone Valley, and they also assign within those regions streams to watersheds to assign them DPV criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3138Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

We compared the shapefile that they used for the NWR regions and the Appendix B-18 list of the DPV watersheds to determine if they matched. We found several mistakes in the two EPA files when compared to each other or when compared to the Florida DEP stream list. For example, 14 are listed in the DEP IWR database as freshwater streams, but they are not assigned a region by EPA in the shapefile. Over 400 streams were given a region in the EPA NWR shapefile, but they were not given a watershed and Appendix B-18. Thirty-three were given a watershed and Appendix B-18 that is not within the larger Florida region given by the EPA shapefile. And then, finally, 48 were given a region in the shapefile that is not consistent with a region assigned to other streams with the same hydrologic code.



# Comment ID 0773.001.004

Author Name: Kelly R. Organization: Southern Dr. Phillips Homeowners Coalition I think the science -- I've heard from several people in here who are scientists in various disciplines point to some of the fallacies in using the five regions of the state, the six regions of the state, and trying to make one size fit all. I'm a geologist by education and I know that the Florida aquifer and the surface water is so close to the surface, that the migration of water through even the natural deposits of phosphorus, which you can see when you fly over Florida in the daytime, you see numerous deposits, very large deposits of phosphorus. It's all over the place. So trying to assign a point source, which I haven't even heard really discussed here -- trying to cite point sources as being a contribution to a water quality condition, I think it's going to be very difficult no matter what standards you apply to what region of the state. I do want to draw attention to I think some astounding numbers on your distribution of the numbers on your four regions of the state. You have regions that go 2X of nitrogen and then you have a range that goes 20X of phosphorus. I think the damage that you're anticipating of either one of those pollutants and water quality does not have the flexibility of being 1/20th at one place and 20 times somewhere else and having the same standard. I don't see how you can achieve that. I think the science is a little weak at this point. I would really urge you to reconsider implementing this at this time because I don't think you're going to meet the sniff test when it comes to more of a public exposure of this. 

# Comment ID 0814.001.002

Author Name: Foy J. Organization: City of Atlantis, the Town of Haverhill

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3139Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Second is Southeast Florida is a lot different than South Florida. Furthermore Palm Beach County is significantly different from the rest of Southeast Florida. 

# Comment ID 0854.001.004

Author Name: Larson A. Organization: Because your numeric standards for the Peninsula, the Bone Valley, the Panhandle and the North County, one is at 43, the panhandle, a little tiny spot up there. But then you look at that big area in the middle where Orlando is and Reedy Creek Water Management District and some of the dirtiest water is coming down the Kissimmee and going into Lake Okeechobee and turning it into -- you know, it's a toilet. That's what it is. So why do I have to clean up somebody up north and come down here? That's bull crap. It is just crap. I'll say it. Nobody wants to be -- everybody is so nice. I'm not. I'm so sick of this crap because we are spending billions of dollars. So if we are going to set a numeric standard of 42, it better be the whole damn state, from the top to the bottom. It doesn't make any sense. And then when I heard -­ One of you, I think it was you who said well, we will let them do it gradually. We will do a pyramid and we'll let them do it a little bit at a time. What, 'cause they have more money? They have more cattle? You know, we have a bad situation. Here in our little town we have a place called Wellington. They have 10,000 horses. There are 40 pounds of poop a day per horse. They call it equine residue. I call it horseshit. That's what it is. Don't be offended, but I am tired. I have been going to meetings for six years and I've lost my mind because our water is being destroyed. Our kids are not going to have clean drinking water. I hear the utilities crying. They're the guys doing this reuse water. I think that's going to come back and get us later on. You know, we're using 60 percent irrigation and 60 percent of it is freshwater. That's -- We're using it to irrigate a golf course. That shouldn't be happening. You do need FTAs, you do need water storage. I'm glad that you're out there, but I want the numeric -- we need to have a fair and balanced look at this because that's not happening. 

# Comment ID 0855.001.006

Author Name: White S. Organization: I went there to all those hearings and the board, I wanted to throw up. Jeb Bush did his last dirty little act. He was sitting there just gitty with the signature, putting that filthy piece of mess into my neighborhood. I am less than five miles from it. And I want to tell you, that that was the dirtiest deal I ever saw here. And we now we have got the governor like a shoe in perpetuating all of this. And so to make himself look better, he's going to buy big sugar. Well, I hope they throw out the whole mess. I don't want to see big sugar get a dime of my money. And let them clean up their mess. And the other thing is here is why would our numbers be so much lower here than up north? I just -- That's not right. It absolutely is not right. And I know I am not probably the most eloquent speaker, but I will always say the truth. And I appreciate you very much for coming.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3140Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0856.001.003

Author Name: Curry P. Organization: So when I hear that you are setting different standards for different parts of the state, I see polluted water running to the south where we are and the cost is going to be impacted on us. Somehow or another I think you have to take that into consideration. I do think we need the same standards. 

# Comment ID 0884.001.001

Author Name: Wertephy A. Organization: Palm Beach County MS4 Program 2. On Pages 4192 and 4224, the watersheds and drainage areas that represent the Peninsula Region should be revised to be consistent with the technical support documents . The graphic map (example : Appendix B-1 - Statistical analysis of nutrient water quality parameters by Florida Watersheds, Page 2-60) identifies that the Peninsula Region extends into Palm Beach County, which requires the text to be modified to include the Lozahatchee Watershed, the L-8 Basin, the C-18 Basin, and Palm Beach County Northeastern Coastal Basin. 

# Comment ID 0896-2.001.010

Author Name: * * Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners

• The use of eco-region mapping does not properly address the high degree of variability that characterizes most watersheds in Florida, particularly the as yet defined South Florida Nutrient Water Region and the lack of biological criteria developed for this same region. 

# Comment ID 0896-2.001.014

Author Name: * * Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners

• The Rule references the Stream Condition Index - however, the Caloosahatchee River does not have a Stream Condition Index, but the Kississimmee River and Fisheating Creek do. So the Caloosahatchee River is grouped together with these other waterbodies in the same ecoregion, but our nutrient issues are very different. Again, this is where site-specific conditions must be considered and given due weight. Or the Caloosahatchee basin could be moved from the Peninsula into South watershed region.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3141Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 0930.001.002

Author Name: Hall S. Organization: I believe we should protect our drinking supply and that the proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria are needed to protect human health and safety. The proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for streams should be applied to the South Florida Region as well, not just the canals criteria as currently proposed. There are numerous natural freshwater streams and rivers in South Florida (Caloosahatchee River, Estero River, Halfway Creek, Spring Creek, Cocohatchee River, Gordon River, Henderson Creek, and the Turner River just to name a few). The FL Dept. of Environmental Protection classifies those streams and rivers as fresh up to their tidal portions and therefore, the streams criteria - not the canal criteria ­ should apply to those fresh waterbodies. 

# Comment ID 0949.001.004

Author Name: Kelley H. Organization: Fort Walton Beach Tea Party 3. In the panhandle, we are being punished for doing a good job of protecting our surface waters by having extremely strict MCLs. In other words, you will actually punish NWF for having the cleanest water in the state, and we will have to improve on that because, based on flawed science, the EPA believes that other regions should be treated more leniently. 

# Comment ID 0968.001.002

Author Name: Denison T. Organization: WBID 3258E (Imperial River) and WBID 3258H (Spring Creek) include rivers or streams that fall within the South Region. However, these WBIDs are part of a watershed that is not specifically listed as part of the Peninsula region described at the top of page 72 in the EPA Water Quality Standards publication. Therefore, the criteria developed for Peninsula streams would not be appropriate for application to South Florida without further investigation. 

# Comment ID 1005.001.004

Author Name: Heatherington K. Organization: Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3142Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

5. The watershed boundaries utilized in the draft rule contain errors that do not include several tributaries that contribute to watersheds, such as the Peace River and the Caloosahatchee River. The SWFRPC recommends the utilization of the NEP and WMD watershed boundaries to define watershed for the purposes of setting numeric nutrient criteria in the Sate of Florida. 

# Comment ID 1130.001.004

Author Name: McCarthy L. Organization: One of our big concerns on this is that -- and you've heard a lot of the comments today from Pinellas County and some of the other governments about money having to be diverted to come up with site-specific criteria because E.P.A.'s taken this broad-brush approach and not considered the diverse characters of the different water bodies in Florida. They're not all the same. And when you have a 300-mile area that you're kind of lumping all together and -- and giving the same numbers, it -- it -- it's going to cause mostly a lot of the local and state governments to spend a lot of money to come up with a site-specific criteria instead of having it done ahead of time. 

# Comment ID 1197.001.008

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. E.P.A.'s proposed criteria will not only be divided into fresh and marine, but the fresh water bodies are further divided by five eco regions into six subtypes including three separate lakes criterias, rivers, springs, and canals. And since water quality standards are used for screening and are, therefore, not meant to be water body specific, the 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 1271.001.002

Author Name: Pearson S. Organization: City of Gainesville First I'd like to speak about the nutrient watershed regions. The City of Gainesville believes that the stream distinct

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3143Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams geography that dominates the area around the city and the resulting ecosystems along the streams are much different than the peninsula nutrient watershed region south of the county. The city believes that additional studies are needed to determine differences and their significance and, if merited, an additional nutrient watershed region should be created to memorialize these differences. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.001

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District The use of a single nutrient value (0.824 mgll for TN and 0.043 mgll for TP) for the panhandle does not seem to be a realistic approach for a region of Florida that has nowing waters with very different characteristics. An overview (see attachment A) of the rivers water quality in Northwest Florida illustrates the complexity of these major rivers and the numerous factors that need to be accounted for, in addition to the nutrient concentration data, before deciding upon their health or level of impairment. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.002

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District The consolidation of the panhandle into one "eco-region" to develop nutrient criteria is not realistic due to significant differences in geomorphology, land use/land cover and soil types across the panhandle. Phosphate rich soils are prevalent in several watersheds in the panhandle due to geology. This is similar to other regions of the tate and a single phosphorus standard implies homogenous conditions in the panhandle which is not the case. 

# Comment ID 1319.001.006

Author Name: Bouyounes M. Organization: Bouyounes Turpentine and Kettle Company We laud EPA for recognizing differences in water quality in Florida and for dividing the state into different water quality regions with potentially different criteria. However, please realize that surface waters still vary with (inaudible). 

# Comment ID 1321.001.009

Author Name: St. John T. Organization: Nature Conservancy

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3144Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The Nature Conservancy supports efforts to not only improve water quality but also to establish, restore and enhance important criterion in aquatic habitats. We are pleased that efforts to date have recognized the differences in water quality throughout Florida by dividing the state into different its regions with different -- with generally different underlying natural water quality levels. However, these water quality -- however, the water quality of rivers and streams can still vary within each region. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.060

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams

• EPA considers all streams within a region to require the same nutrient criteria. However, Florida has a diverse array of stream reaches and consideration should be given to the different structure and function of these stream types in order to develop meaningful criteria. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.061

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams

• 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 be considered in either the development or evaluation process. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.062

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams

• 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. When does a stream become a canal? It appears that 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3145Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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 1352-1.001.063

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams • EPA's stream criteria are assumed to be appropriate for all streams within a region, irrespective of stream order, watershed size, or any of the other factors that may significantly affect the stream's response to varying nutrient concentrations or loading. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.065

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams

• Why does EPA assume that regional numeric nutrient criteria will be protective of full aquatic life uses given that their criteria are not based on any dose-response relationships? Why is it appropriate for a reference stream to have an TP IPV that is 7 times that of another stream located within a different geographic region? EPA stated that "the resulting regions reflect the inherit differences in the natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams". 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.110

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County The EPA should apply ecological concepts as a framework for establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida streams. Ecological principles such as Vannote et. al. (1980) who describe a river continuum concept that allows for the stream networks to be described by a continuum of biological responses linked by energy flow pathways based on stream order should be considered as the basis for establishing numeric nutrient criteria. This concept considers that different stream orders have different ecological roles and therefore have different structure and function. Currently, EPA considers all streams within a region to require the same nutrient criteria. The diverse array of Florida stream reaches should be considered in developing meaningful numeric nutrient criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3146Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.112

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County EPA's decision to rely on regional numeric nutrient criteria involved the classification of Florida waterbodies into geographic regions. EPA stated that "the resulting regions reflect the inherit differences in the natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams". The classification scheme resulted in four geographic regions: Panhandle, North Central, Peninsula and Bone Valley Regions. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.115

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County EPA considers all streams within a region to require the same nutrient criteria. However, Florida has a diverse array of stream reaches and consideration should be given to the different structure and function of these stream types in order to develop meaningful criteria. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.116

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County 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 be considered in either the development or evaluation process. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.117

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3147Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams considered to have only either canals or wetlands and therefore no stream criteria were established for south Florida. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.118

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County EPA's stream criteria are assumed to be appropriate for all streams within a region, irrespective of stream order, watershed size, or any of the other factors that may significantly affect the stream's response to varying nutrient concentrations or loading. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.121

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Blackwater stream characteristics and wetland influences are not adequately incorporated into the proposed rule criteria. Higher nutrient levels and lower DO values can be natural in many systems throughout Florida, therefore setting a single region-wide level or eliminating all WBIDs listed on the IWR is not a reasonable approach. As seen in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0154, FDEP found that "low DO results from adverse nutrient enrichment is not a supported contention". 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.179

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County The goal of the regionalization was to identify areas whose TN and TP concentrations differed significantly. The EPA has justified TP NWRs, but does not deal with TN NWRs and simply adopts the same areas. EPA identifies geology, soils composition, and hydrology as factors in NWR delineation, however it seems as if only geology and soils are used. EPA needs to document how they used hydrology. In general, research and data on the influence of hydrology seems to be consistently lacking in the (EPA, 2010b). 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. Particular attention was given to characterizing the differences in geology among the regions including the naturally phosphorus rich soils associated with the Bone Valley formation. EPA "would expect from a general ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally occurring, nutrient rich conditions, would be supported" (page 77). This statement suggests that the biological community has adapted to what would in other systems be characterized as excessive concentration of TP. However, no empiricalevidence is given to support this assertion and no biological comparisons are provided to examine the intra and inter11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3148Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams regional differences in the biotic communities. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.015

Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division 1-3) EPA is curious as to whether any statistical analyses were performed to arrive at the nutrient watershed regions based on ratios of TN:TP. Perhaps a greater number of nutrient watershed regions could be proposed? It should be noted that Florida DEP states that approximately 35% of Florida's surface waters will not meet the proposed instream criteria, and this percent is much higher with the application of downstream protection values. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.017

Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division 1-5) Other factors, such as landuse and nonpoint sources, may also need to be examined in developing the nutrient watershed regions. For example, there seems to be a disparity between the instream nutrient criteria proposed for the Panhandle region when compared to the other regions. The Panhandle region in less developed than other regions in Florida, and thus the nutrient impacts from urban sources are less. Since the criteria were based on a statistical probability of the observed data, the resulting criteria are biased low. With future growth in the Panhandle and resulting changes in landuse, compliance with these stringent nutrient criteria may be difficult if not impossible to maintain. 

# Comment ID 1354-1.001.002

Author Name: Tompkins H. Organization: St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners Scientific Approach The target criteria must be based on suffieciently adequate data and good science to justify the required long-term capital, resource, and labor investments of treatment projects. The proposed numeric water quality standards do not recognize the site-specific variation among waterbodies nor the fact that natural nutrient concentrations could be relatively high in many Florida waters. The proposed criteria assume that all waterbodies within a region require the same nutrient criteria regardless of stream order, watershed size, or any of the other factors that may significantly affect the stream's response to varying nutrient concentrations or loadings. Consideration should be given to the different structure and function of various Florida stream types to develop meaningful criteria. In addition, the water quality data used to determine the waterbody status may not be available at the desired temporal or spatial scales to adequately support water quality modeling or

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3149Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams adequately characterize the waterbody. St. John's County is developing a water quality monitoring plan to augment the existing data to better characterize some of these stream systems. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.036

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners EPA considers all streams within a region to require the same nutrient criteria. However, Florida has a diverse array of stream reaches and consideration should be given to the different structure and function of these stream types in order to develop meaningful criteria. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.037

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 be considered in either the development or evaluation process. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.038

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 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. When does a stream become a canal? It appears that 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 1355-2.001.039

Author Name: Barker V.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3150Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners EPA's stream criteria are assumed to be appropriate for all streams within a region, irrespective of stream order, watershed size, or any of the other factors that may significantly affect the stream's response to varying nutrient concentrations or loading. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.041

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Why does EPA assume that regional numeric nutrient criteria will be protective of full aquatic life uses given that their criteria are not based on any dose-response relationships? Why is it appropriate for a reference stream to have an TP IPV that is 7 times that of another stream located within a diferent geographic region? EPA stated that "the resulting regions reflect the inherit differences in the natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams". 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.082

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners EPA's decision to rely on regional numeric nutrient criteria involved the classification of Florida waterbodies into geographic regions. EPA stated that "the resulting regions reflect the inherit differences in the natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams". The classification scheme resulted in four geographic regions: Panhandle, North Central, Peninsula and Bone Valley Regions. 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 1355-2.001.088

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners EPA considers all streams within a region to require the same nutrient criteria. However, Florida has a diverse array of stream reaches and consideration should be given to the different structure and function of these stream types in order to develop meaningful criteria. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.090

Author Name: Barker V.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3151Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners EPA's stream criteria are assumed to be appropriate for all streams within a region, irrespective of stream order, watershed size, or any of the other factors that may significantly affect the stream's response to varying nutrient concentrations or loading. The complexities of developing effective numeric nutrient criteria rely not only on the estimation of the number itself but in having a flexible implementation strategy that allows for the recognition of the inherent differences among streams in their response to nutrient inputs. 

# Comment ID 1356-1.001.006

Author Name: Hayes D. Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce Section III.C. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Rivers and Streams.
1. Manatee County supports EPA's proposal of establishing TP and TN criteria for Florida's rivers and streams based on geographically distinct Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWR). These regions "reflect the inherent differences in natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams (e.g., geology, soil, composition and/or hydrology) ." We also concur with EPA's conclusion that "from a general ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally-occurring, nutrient-rich conditions, 'would be supported" As previously stated, Manatee County supports a similar approach for establishing TP and TN criteria for lakes within the Bone Valley NWR. 

# Comment ID 1364-1.001.008

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida C. Region-Wide Water Quality Standards Do Not Reflect the Unique Attributes and Needs of Florida's Water Bodies In developing the numeric nutrient standards, there is a need to establish a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and valued ecological attributes. This should require an assessment of the biological conditions on a gradient scale whereby baselines are established and the impacts of nutrient loading is evaluated to determine the thresholds for biological imbalance.EPA is proposing a regional distribution or "eco-region" approach as opposed to a site specific approach. The ecoregion provisions fall within the "one size fits all" approach which is problematic when considering the very unique, site specific, conditions of Lee County's water resources. Lee County believes that the use of large eco-region mapping does not properly address the high degree of variability that characterizes most watersheds in Florida. For instance, Lee County is bisected by two different eco-regions, South of the Caloosahatchee River falls within one region, while

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3152Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams north of the Caloosahatchee River falls within a different region. Lee County supports the need to define smaller regions so that criteria are established in response to local conditions, and thus water quality restoration dollars can be targeted to the local regions that are most in need. 

# Comment ID 1364-1.001.014

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida H. Use of Stream Condition Index, Rule Implementation and Compliance Issues The Rule references the Stream Condition Index. However, the Caloosahatchee River does not have a Stream Condition Index, but the Kississimmee River and Fisheating Creek do. Based on the regional standards, the Caloosahatchee River is grouped together with these other water bodies in the same ecoregion; however, the Caloosahatchee River's nutrient issues may be very different. Again, this is where site-specific conditions must be given due weight, and the "one size fits all" approach avoided.[2]

[2] The Caloosahatchee River has not been placed in an appropriate Nutrient Water Region ("NWR") because there are no valid biological evaluation tools available for the watershed. Lee County believes that the Caloosahatchee basin should be part of the South Florida NWR and not the Peninsula NWR.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3153Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.007

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works Include figures that clearly delineate the divisions between the different nutrient watershed regions in both the text of the Proposed Rule and in Chapter 4 of the Technical Support Document. Due to the coloration of the maps, it is not possible to determine the extent of South Florida for the purposes of this proposed rule based on the figures in Chapter 4 of the Technical Support Document. The comments provided here are based on the Everglades Bioregion as shown in Figure 5-2, Stream Bioregions of Florida in the Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Waters document. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.023

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Ecoregions are too broadly defined and should be narrowed to account for regional variability. This would alleviate the need for costly SSAC proposals. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.024

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Pinellas County considers EPA's use of the Nutrient Watershed Regions acceptable; however, the County recommends that EPA continue to develop and identify distinct subregions within the current approach as data become available to provide greater resolution of nutrient watershed regions. An approach that groups water bodies that have distinct differences in water quality relationships does little to meaningfully determine true water body impairment. This can result in the misplaced use of limited resources to improve water quality. 

# Comment ID 1434-1.001.020

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors T17 III C(2) The HSWCD notes that the general description provided in this section does not appear applicable to streams in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3154Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams peninsular Florida, particularly references to rapidly flowing streams. Though surface streams leaving the Lake Wales Ridge may on occasion fit this description, many are highly stained, meandering through wetlands or lakes. Additionally, the influence of groundwater seepage on their water budget should not be dismissed, particularly in the Peace River. 

# Comment ID 1434-1.001.022

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors T19 III C(3) The HSWCD agrees with the EPA's proposed classification of streams and its proposed criteria for nutrients, as well as the use of NWR and SCI metrics. Even more than with lake systems, water flow in streams and rivers is a critical component of stream health and response to human purturbations. The HSWCD suggests adding guidance regarding the frequency and duration of sampling relative to stream flows, as well as a nutrient load component, to better characterize actual mass transport within the system. {P4196, comments requested} 

# Comment ID 1475-1.001.002

Author Name: Arrington D. Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District While LRD supports development of site-specific numeric nutrient criteria, we do have a number of concerns regarding EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. They are: In your text and maps, please clarify the southern border between the Peninsula Nutrient Watershed and the South Region Nutrient Watershed. In particular, please clearly state in your text descriptions and show in your maps the location of the Loxahatchee River Watershed. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.073

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District F. The Different Criteria for Canals and Streams Produces Inconsistencies in Their Applications Throughout The District (Also See District Comments On Canals) Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.400 articulates the designated uses for Floridas waters. Class III waters are designated for recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well balanced population of fish and wildlife (i.e. "fishable and swimmable"). While both streams and canals are designated as Class III waters, as noted in the attached Canal Science Inventory, the physical and biological nature of canals is significantly different than that of a natural stream. In

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3155Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams other words, what is protective of recreation and a healthy, well balanced population of fish and wildlife in a natural stream is entirely different than that in a canal. Both waterbodies can be classified as Class III waterbodies, but USEPA must still examine how the use specifically applies to the physical and biological attributes of a given waterbody instead of subjectively promulgating criteria that does not reflect the nature of the designated use on an eco-region basis. It is therefore arbitrary and capricious to treat canals outside of the South Florida Region as streams under the proposed rule since they are operated and managed the same as canals in the South Florida Region. USEPA has provided no support for approaching canals north of the South Florida Region in this manner. Additionally, USEPA has not proposed any solutions regarding how to address systems that are heavily managed in certain sections but qualify as natural streams in others. 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.011

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport

• EPA's regionalization for Bone Valley is too large, and criteria are not adequately protective for some areas in the Tampa Bay area 

# Comment ID 1481-1.001.021

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department III C(2) Highlands County notes that the general description provided in this section does not appear applicable to streams in peninsular Florida, particularly references to rapidly flowing streams. Though surface streams leaving the Lake Wales Ridge may on occasion fit this description, many are highly stained, meandering through wetlands or lakes. Additionally, the influence of groundwater seepage on their water budget should not be dismissed, particularly in the Peace River. 

# Comment ID 1481-1.001.023

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department III C(3) Highlands County agrees with the EPA's proposed classification of streams and its proposed criteria for nutrients, as well as the use of NWR and SCI metrics. Even more than with lake systems, water flow in streams and rivers is a critical component of stream health and response to human perturbations. Highlands County suggests adding guidance regarding the frequency and duration of sampling relative to stream flows, as well as a nutrient load component, to better characterize actual mass transport within the system. {P4196, comments requested}

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3156Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1532-1.001.016

Author Name: Stacey P. Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Similarly, the Proposed Rule does not consider the natural succession of rivers and streams. Even when undisturbed by human effect, fourth order streams will not be identical to first order streams in structure or function and in their response to nutrient loads. 

# Comment ID 1614-1.001.003

Author Name: DeBogory P. Organization: South Florida Water Management District According to the rule published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2010, the Panhandle of Florida will have the lowest numeric nutrient limits in the entire state of Florida. The proposed rule shows an Instream Protective Value of 0.82 mg/l Total Nitrogen and 0.043 mg/l Total Phosphorus for streams in the Panhandle. That is a 73% reduction in TN concentration and a 96% reduction in TP concentration below current AWT criteria. The proposed rule also shows a Protective TN Load for Choctawhatchee Bay of 2,875,861 kg per year. Assuming we discharge our annual permitted amount into our Apricot wet weather discharge at our maximum permit limits for TN, SWU would discharge 0.2 % (two tenths of 1 percent) of the annual Total Protective TN Load. 

# Comment ID 1642-1.001.006

Author Name: Tilton A. Organization: Water Resources Group on behalf of Johnson Engineering, Inc. 5. The Caloosahatchee is the most southem portion of the Peninsula Region. There are natural streams south of this that are now shown in the South Region with only water quality for canals. These include Hendry Creek, Mullock Creek, Estero River, Halfway Creek, Spring Creek, Imperial River, Lietner Creek, Oak Creek and the Cocohatchee. The area also has canals such as Ten Mile Canal, Kehl Canal, Cocohatchee Canal before getting to the Golden Gate and Faka Union Canal Systems. It seems clear that the canals would all be held to the stand ards of the South Region. What standard would be applied to the natural streams? If there are new standards developed for these, what would be the possibility of review before adoption? 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.007

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3157Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2. Recommended Stream Regionalization The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Assessment Framework (CAF) delineation of estuarine drainage areas (EDAs), fluvial drainage areas (FDAs), and coastal drainage areas (CDAs) formed the foundation of the U.S. EPA NWRs. Data tables of nutrient water quality sampling stations and their associated waterbody IDs (WBIDs) were joined to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Assessment Framework (CAF) delineation of estuarine drainage areas (EDAs), fluvial drainage areas (FDAs), and coastal drainage areas (CDAs). The stated reason for this approach is EPA's opinion that "a watershed-based classification should facilitate the ability to address the effects of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) within streams, as well as from streams to downstream lakes or estuaries in the same watershed. U.S.EPA classified Florida's streams north of Lake Okeechobee by separating watersheds, based on the molar ratio of TN and TP in streams, into NWRs." U.S. EPA stated that the resulting NWRs reflect the inherent differences in the natural factors that influence nutrient concentrations in streams (e.g., geology, soil composition, and/or hydrology). DEP agrees that an effective regionalization scheme will facilitate the assessment of in stream nutrient effects; however, we disagree that lumping watersheds based on common CDA or EDA ensures relatively homogenous regions reflective of natural conditions. A reference stream based approach can only be assumed to be inherently protective of both upstream and downstream waters when the upstream waters are grouped into similar and comparable regions or categories. In the case of Florida's streams, the influence of natural geologic phosphatic deposits is a major determining factor in the in-stream phosphorus concentrations. Likewise, the presence and areal extent of wetlands within a watershed has a major influence on natural organic nitrogen levels within streams. While many tributaries to Tampa Bay or Charlotte Harbor historically exhibited naturally high TP concentrations, many others exhibited significantly lower TP levels. U.S. EPA's regionalization will effectively allow increased nutrient loading to the downstream estuary by grouping these heterogeneous watersheds. DEP used stream bioregions as a starting point for the development of stream nutrient criteria regions. Based upon the observed biological community resemblance within a bioregion, it is logical that these biologically-similar regions will have analogously similar responses to nutrient concentrations. However, subsequent evaluation of nutrient concentrations in the benchmark sites revealed additional spatial patterns; that is, the bioregions were not sufficiently homogenous with regards to nutrient concentration. Alternative nutrient regions were developed based on a consideration of the bioregions, ecoregions, geological formations (e.g., Bone Valley, Peace River, and Hawthorn formation), benchmark nutrient levels, geostatistical analysis, and drainage basins. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.016

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection c) South Florida Region DEP's original South Florida nutrient region was delineated based solely on ecoregion 76. EPA subsequently refined the region based on watersheds. EPA only proposed nutrient criteria for canals in this region,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3158Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams which are by far the predominant "flowing" water features, with the notable exception of slowly flowing wetlands, including the Everglades. EPA should consider including additional WBIDs in the South Florida nutrient region,including the S-4, Ninemile Canal, C-139, portions of Okaloacoochee Slough, Immokalee, Silver Strand, Basin 8, and L8 basins. Canals are the dominate water feature within these basins. Additionally, these basins are either within or significantly overlap CDAs/EDAs already included by EPA in the South Florida NWR. Additional comments regarding sub-regionalization of the South Florida NWR are provided in DEP's comments on South Florida canal criteria. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 8. Stream total phosphorus contour plots based on ordinary kriging analysis of benchmark stream sites from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.046

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Use of TN:TP Ratio in Many Systems is Inappropriate Use of TN:TP ratios in many systems is inappropriate because much of the N is not available for plant growth. USEPA provided no clear explanation of why it developed its stream classifications and nutrient criteria based only on total nutrient ratios and not on nutrient concentrations. Although there is a fairly large range in TN:TP ratios among the streams and defined regions, there is a large within-class range for the two largest classes (Panhandle and Peninsula). The number of watersheds with data is insufficient for the other two classes to evaluate within-class variability). In addition, the average values presented indicate that all of them except the phosphorus-rich Bone Valley region (median TN:TP ratio of 9) are potentially P limited or have balanced N:P ratios. Even the P-rich streams of the Bone Valley do not appear to be strongly N limited. The value of classifying water bodies based on TN:TP ratios is also questionable in relation to limiting nutrient conditions in streams, since large but variable fractions of the TN in Florida waters are bound to humic matter and not available for plant growth. 

# Comment ID 1722-1.001.003

Author Name: Cunniff L. Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 2. The regional template being applied by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) within Florida is too broad and generic. Regional diversity within Florida plays a significant factor in the naturally occurring influences on the surface water nutrient levels. Some regional areas in Florida have naturally occurring phosphatic soils rich in naturally occurring phosphates. There is no consideration for the regional dynamics within regional areas of the state. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.022

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3159Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 3. Stream criteria (and the regionalization) do not account for the existence of certain types of stream systems in Florida, i.e. blackwater/wetland dominated systems which have naturally low DO and high nutrient concentrations. In the upper portions of Hillsborough County there are numerous stream systems that exhibit blackwater characteristics (Blackwater Creek, Trout Creek, Upper Hillsborough River). For nitrogen it is important that these types of systems are not regulated to levels below where they would be naturally. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.025

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 6. The majority of reference streams used in the approach are located in the Peninsula and Panhandle regions with only two sites in the Bone Valley and very few overall in southwest Florida. 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.013

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa IV. Comments on Proposed Stream, Canal, and Spring Criteria The EPA's classification approach for streams results in four watershed regions: the Panhandle, the Bone Valley, the Peninsula, and the North Central. These four regions do not include the South Florida region that is addressed separately in the canal criteria section. Cocoa is located in the Peninsula Region. The proposed instream protection value ("IPV") criteria for the Peninsula region is 1.205 mgIL TN and 0.107 mgIL TP.
A. Streams
1. Stream Definition Should Exclude All Canals, Not Just South Florida Canals As discussed in more detail below, the Proposed Rule defines "stream" as a freeflowing, predominantly fresh surface water in a defmed channel, and includes rivers, creeks, branches, canals (outside South Florida), freshwater sloughs, and other similar water bodies. The EPA's inclusion of canals outside of south Florida within this definition is arbitrary and capricious. Even assuming that EPA has the requisite legal authority to regulate canals, EPA should question whether it should exercise that authority. Canals are artificial systems carved into the Earth's surface for human purposes such as water supply and flood control. These systems are not natural and carmot be treated as such. The EPA recognizes the distinguished nature of these systems in South Florida. However, the geographical location of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3160Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams these systems is irrelevant. A canal is a canal whether located on one side of the Peninsula/South Florida region boundary or the other. It is absurd that certain canals in South Florida are located in both the Peninsula and South Florida region and under the Proposed Rule are treated as canals in South Florida and streams in the Peninsula region.

It is also worth noting that South Florida was considered to have only either canals or wetlands and therefore no stream criteria were established for South Florida. The obvious question is when a stream becomes a canal. It appears that EPA considers there to be no streams in South Florida and no canals north of South Florida. However, the Loxahatchee River, Blackwater River, and Estero River 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. The EPA should recognize the unique characteristics of canals and exclude all canals, regardless oflocation from the definition of"stream". 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.077

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa The EPA's stream criteria are assumed to be appropriate for all streams within a region, irrespective of stream order, watershed size, or any of the other factors that may significantly affect the stream's response to varying nutrient concentrations or loading. However, Florida has a diverse array of stream reaches and consideration should be given to the different structure and function of these stream types in order to develop meaningful criteria. 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 be considered in either the development or evaluation process. It is unclear why EPA assumes that regional numeric nutrient criteria will be protective of full aquatic life uses given that the criteria are not based on any doseresponse relationship and it has been demonstrated that a reference stream can have 7 times the TP of another reference stream depending upon which geographic region it falls. EPA stated that "the resulting regions reflect the inherent differences in the natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams". Particular attention was given to characterizing the differences in geology among the regions including the naturally phosphorus rich soils associated with the Bone Valley formation. EPA states it "would expect from a general ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally occurring, nutrient rich conditions, would be supported". This statement suggests that the biological community has adapted to what would in other systems be characterized as excessive concentration of TP. However, no empirical evidence is given to support this assertion and no biological comparisons are provided to examine the intra and inter-regional differences in the biotic communities.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3161Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1770-1.001.033

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City IV. Comments on Proposed Stream, Canal, and Spring Criteria The EPA's classification approach for streams results in four watershed regions: the Panhandle, the Bone Valley, the Peninsula, and the North Central. These four regions do not include the South Florida region that is addressed separately in the canal criteria section. Plant City is located in the Bone Valley Region. The proposed instream protection value ("lPV") criteria for the Bone Valley region is 1.798 mg/L TN and 0.739 mg/L TP.
A. Streams
1. Stream Definition Should Exclude All Canals, Not Just South Florida Canals As discussed in more detail below, the Proposed Rule defmes "stream" as a freeflowing, predominantly fresh surface water in a defined channel, and includes rivers, creeks, branches, canals (outside South Florida), freshwater sloughs, and other similar water bodies. The EPA's inclusion of canals outside of south Florida within this definition is arbitrary and capricious. Even assuming that EPA has the requisite legal authority to regulate canals, EPA should question whether it should exercise that authority. Canals are artificial systems carved into the Earth's surface for human purposes such as water supply and flood control. These systems are not natural and cannot be treated as such. The EPA recognizes the distinguished nature of these systems in South Florida. However, the geographical location of these systems is irrelevant. A canal is a canal whether located on one side of the Peninsula/South Florida region boundary or the other. It is absurd that certain canals in South Florida are located in both the Peninsula and South Florida region and under the Proposed Rule are treated as canals in South Florida and streams in the Peninsula region.

It is also worth noting that South Florida was considered to have only either canals or wetlands and therefore no stream criteria were established for South Florida. The obvious question is when a stream becomes a canal. It appears that EPl\ considers there to be no streams in South Florida and no canals north of South Florida. However, the Loxahatchee River, Blackwater River, and Estero River 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. The EPA should recognize the unique characteristics of canals and exclude all canals, regardless oflocation from the definition of "stream". 

# Comment ID 1770-1.001.039

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3162Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City The EPA's stream criteria are assumed to be appropriate for all streams within a region, irrespective of stream order, watershed size, or any of the other factors that may significantly affect the stream's response to varying nutrient concentrations or loading. However, Florida has a diverse array of stream reaches and consideration should be given to the different structure and function of these stream types in order to develop meaningful criteria. 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 be considered in either the development or evaluation process. It is unclear why EPA assumes that regional numeric nutrient criteria will be protective of full aquatic life uses given that the criteria are not based on any doseresponse relationship and it has been demonstrated that a reference stream can have 7 times the TP of another reference stream depending upon which geographic region it falls. EPA stated that "the resulting regions reflect the inherent differences in the natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams". Particular attention was given to characterizing the differences in geology among the regions including the naturally phosphorus rich soils associated with the Bone Valley formation. EPA states it "would expect from a general ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally occurring, nutrient rich conditions, would be supported". This statement suggests that the biological community has adapted to what would in other systems be characterized as excessive concentration of TP. However, no empirical evidence is given to support this assertion and no biological comparisons are provided to examine the intra and inter-regional differences in the biotic communities. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.040

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County IV. Comments on Proposed Stream, Canal, and Spring Criteria The EPA's classification approach for streams results in four watershed regions: the Panhandle, the Bone Valley, the Peninsula, and the North Central. These four regions do not include the South Florida region that is addressed separately in the canal criteria section. Seminole County is located in the Peninsula Region. The proposed instream protection value ("IPV") criteria for the Peninsula region is 1.205 mg/L TN and 0.107 mg/L TP. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.042

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County A. Streams

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3163Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

1. Stream Definition Should Exclude All Canals, Not Just South Florida Canals As discussed in more detail below, the Proposed Rule defines "stream" as a freeflowing, predominantly fresh surface water in a defined channel, and includes rivers, creeks, branches, canals (outside South Florida), freshwater sloughs, and other similar water bodies. The EPA's inclusion of canals outside of South Florida within this definition is arbitrary and capricious. Even assuming that EPA has the requisite legal authority to regulate canals, EPA should question whether it should exercise that authority. Canals are artificial systems carved into the Earth's surface for human purposes such as water supply and flood control. These systems are not natural and cannot be treated as such. The EPA recognizes the distinguished nature of these systems in South Florida. However, the geographical location of these systems is irrelevant. A canal is a canal whether located on one side of the Peninsula/South Florida region boundary or the other. It is absurd that certain canals in South Florida are located in both the Peninsula and South Florida region and under the Proposed Rule are treated as canals in South Florida and streams in the Peninsula region.

It is also worth noting that South Florida was considered to have only either canals or wetlands and therefore no stream criteria were established for South Florida. The obvious question is when a stream becomes a canal. It appears that EPA considers there to be no streams in South Florida and no canals north of South Florida. However, the Loxahatchee River, Blackwater River, and Estero River 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. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.048

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County The EPA's stream criteria are assumed to be appropriate for all streams within a region, irrespective of stream order, watershed size, or any of the other factors that may significantly affect the stream's response to varying nutrient concentrations or loading. However, Florida has a diverse array of stream reaches and consideration should be given to the different structure and function of these stream types in order to develop meaningful criteria. 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 be considered in either the development or evaluation process. It is unclear why EPA assumes that regional numeric nutrient criteria will be protective of full aquatic life uses given that the criteria are not based on any doseresponse relationship and it has been demonstrated that a reference stream can have 7 times the TP of another reference stream depending upon which geographic region it falls. EPA stated that "the resulting regions reflect the inherent differences in the natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams". Particular attention was given to characterizing the differences in geology among the regions including the naturally phosphorus rich soils associated with the Bone Valley formation. EPA states it "would expect from a general

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3164Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally occurring, nutrient rich conditions, would be supported". This statement suggests that the biological community has adapted to what would in other systems be characterized as excessive concentration of TP. However, no empirical evidence is given to support this assertion and no biological comparisons are provided to examine the intra and inter-regional differences in the biotic communities. 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.034

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville IV. Comments on Proposed Stream, Canal, and Spring Criteria The EPA's classification approach for streams results in four watershed regions: the Panhandle, the Bone Valley, the Peninsula, and the North Central. These four regions do not include the South Florida region which is addressed separately in the canal criteria section. Titusville is located in the Peninsula Region. The proposed instream protection value ("IPV") criteria for the Peninsula region is 1.205 mg/L TN and 0.107 mg/L TP. 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.036

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville A. Streams
1. Stream Definition Should Exclude All Canals, Not Just South Florida Canals As discussed in more detail below, the Proposed Rule defines "stream" as a free-flowing, predominantly fresh surface water in a defined channel, and includes rivers, creeks, branches, canals (outside South Florida), freshwater sloughs, and other similar water bodies. The EPA's inclusion of canals outside of South Florida within this definition is arbitrary and capricious. Even assuming that EPA has the requisite legal authority to regulate canals, EPA should question whether it should exercise that authority. Canals are artificial systems carved into the Earth's surface for human authority. Canals are artificial systems carved into the Earth's surface for human purposes such as water supply and flood control. These systems are not natural and cannot be treated as such. The EPA recognizes the distinguished nature of these systems in South Florida. However, the geographical location of these systems is irrelevant. A canal is a canal whether located on one side of the Peninsula/South Florida region boundary or the other. It is absurd that certain canals in South Florida are located in both the Peninsula and South Florida region and under the Proposed Rule are treated as canals in South Florida and streams in the Peninsula region. It is also worth noting that South Florida was considered to have only either canals or wetlands and therefore no stream criteria were established for South Florida. The obvious question is when a stream becomes a canal. It appears that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3165Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams EPA considers there to be no streams in South Florida and no canals north of South Florida. However, the Loxahatchee River, Blackwater River, and Estero River are beautiful streams in South Florida while the Lake Tarpon Canal (in Pinellas County) is not a streams 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. The EPA should recognize the unique characteristics of canals and exclude all canals, regardless of location from the definition of "stream". 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.042

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville The EPA's stream criteria are assumed to be appropriate for all streams within a region, irrespective of stream order, watershed size, or any of the other factors that may significantly affect the stream's response to varying nutrient concentrations or loading. However, Florida has a diverse array of stream reaches and consideration should be given to the different structure and function of these stream types in order to develop meaningful criteria. 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 be considered in either the development or evaluation process. It is unclear why EPA assumes that regional numeric nutrient criteria will be protective of full aquatic life uses given that the criteria are not based on any dose-response relationship and it has been demonstrated that a reference stream can have 7 times the TP of another reference stream depending upon which geographic region it falls. EPA stated that "the resulting regions reflect the inherent differences in the natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams". Particular attention was given to characterizing the differences in geology among the regions including the naturally phosphorus rich soils associated with the Bone Valley formation. EPA states it "would expect from a general ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally occurring, nutrient rich conditions, would be supported". This statement suggests that the biological community has adapted to what would in other systems be characterized as excessive concentration of TP. However, no empirical evidence is given to support this assertion and no biological comparisons are provided to examine the intra and inter-regional differences in the biotic communities. 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.037

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission IV. Comments on Proposed Stream, Canal, and Spring Criteria

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3166Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

The EPA's classification approach for streams results in four watershed regions: the Panhandle, the Bone Valley, the Peninsula, and the North Central. These four regions do not include the South Florida region that is addressed separately in the canal criteria section. auc is located in the Peninsula Region. The proposed instream protection value ("IPV") criteria for the Peninsula region is 1.205 mg/L TN and 0.107 mg/L TP.
A. Streams
1. Stream Definition Should Exclude All Canals, Not Just South Florida Canals As discussed in more detail below, the Proposed Rule defines "stream" as a free-flowing, predominantly fresh surface water in a defined channel, and includes rivers, creeks, branches, canals (outside South Florida), freshwater sloughs, and other similar water bodies. The EPA's inclusion ofcanals outside of South Florida within this definition is arbitrary and capricious. Even assuming that EPA has the requisite legal authority to regulate canals, EPA should question whether it should exercise that authority. Canals are artificial systems carved into the Earth's surface for human purposes such as water supply and flood control. These systems are not natural and cannot be treated as such. The EPA recognizes the distinguished nature of these systems in South Florida. However, the geographical location of these systems is irrelevant. A canal is a canal whether located on one side of the Peninsula/South Florida region boundary or the other. It is absurd that certain canals in South Florida are located in both the Peninsula and South Florida region and under the Proposed Rule are treated as canals in South Florida and streams in the Peninsula region.

It is also worth noting that South Florida was considered to have only either canals or wetlands and therefore no stream criteria were established for South Florida. The obvious question is when a stream becomes a canal. It appears that EPA considers there to be no streams in South Florida and no canals north of South Florida. However, the Loxahatchee River, Blackwater River, and Estero River 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. 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.043

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission The EPA's stream criteria are assumed to be appropriate for all streams within a region, irrespective of stream order, watershed size, or any of the other factors that may significantly affect the stream's response to varying nutrient concentrations or loading. However, Florida has a diverse array of stream reaches and consideration should be given to the different structure and function of these stream types in order to develop meaningful criteria. 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 be considered in either the development or evaluation process.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3167Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

It is unclear why EPA assumes that regional numeric nutrient criteria will be protective of full aquatic life uses given that the criteria are not based on any dose-response relationship and it has been demonstrated that a reference stream can have 7 times the TP of another reference stream depending upon which geographic region it falls. EPA stated that "the resulting regions reflect the inherent differences in the natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams". Particular attention was given to characterizing the differences in geology among the regions including the naturally phosphorus rich soils associated with the Bone Valley formation. EPA states it "would expect from a general ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally occurring, nutrient rich conditions, would be supported". This statement suggests that the biological community has adapted to what would in other systems be characterized as excessive concentration of TP. However, no empirical evidence is given to support this assertion and no biological comparisons are provided to examine the intra- and inter-regional differences in the biotic communities. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.031

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida

- Use of large eco-region mapping (e,g, the Florida Panhandle Region) 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 TMDLs, It is recommended that smaller ecoregions be defined so that values are more indicative of local conditions, We find on a local level within relatively short distances, that there is tremendous variability between similar waterbody types (i.e, large shallow lakes, etc,), which correlate to the variability in geology, soils, water tables, etc. It seems that it would be quite onerous to delineate eco-regions accurately without considerable efforts to analyze and collect the necessary information, this makes the idea of "one size fits all" numeric nutrient criteria even within more discreet eco-regions less likely to be appropriate for every waterbody. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.019

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 4. Stream criteria (and the regionalization) do not account for the existence of certain types of stream systems in Florida, i.e. blackwater/wetland dominated systems which have naturally low DO and high nutrient concentrations. For nitrogen it is important that these types of systems are not regulated to levels below where they would be naturally. The regionalization does not account for these types of systems and does not recognize the influence of color in the system as Lakes did. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.086

Author Name: Blanchard B.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3168Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Rivers and Streams III.C(1) Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams EPA is proposing numeric nutrient Statement: The following section describes the methodology used to derive the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for streams. EPA is soliciting comments and scientific data and information regarding these proposed criteria and their derivation. Original comment letter contains additional data or information for Rivers and Streams from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. See original comment letter. Comment: Overall the use of a reference approach is not sufficient for use in establishing numeric nutrient criteria for streams. The degree of variability and the significant impact of local hydrology on the expression of nutrient response is such that regional numbers will create significant errors in the determination of impaired and unimpaired waters, especially where in-stream values reside within the level of uncertainty. Comments made below regarding the application of the reference approach must be taken as directed at the application, and not supporting an alternate method of using the reference approach. No mention of a minimum required number of samples is mentioned while timing and seasonality are also important sampling factors. It is important for the use of the geometric mean that sufficient data are available to assure a true mean is established and that limited data do not create a false identification of impaired or unimpaired waters. More rigorous establishment of the statistical validity of the required number of samples should be provided by EPA.



# Comment ID 1778-1.001.002

Author Name: Arrington D. Organization: Loxahatchee River District While LRD supports development of site-specific numeric nutrient criteria, we do have a number of concerns regarding EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. They are: -In your text and maps, please clarify the southern border between the Peninsula Nutrient Watershed and the South Region Nutrient Watershed. In particular, please clearly state in your text descriptions and show in your maps the location of the Loxahatchee River Watershed. Furthermore, please justify why canals are defined as streams in the Peninsula Nutrient Waterhsed? Clearly the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River is a stream, but the C-18 canal is in fact a canal and functions like a canal (not a stream). 

# Comment ID 1785-1.001.012

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3169Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida

c. Region-Wide Water Quality Standards Do Not Reflect the Unique Attributes and Needs of Florida's Water Bodies In developing the numeric nutrient standards, there is a need to establish a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and valued ecological attributes. This should require an assessment of the biological conditions on a gradient scale whereby baselines are established and the impacts of nutrient loading is evaluated to determine the thresholds for biological imbalance.EPA is proposing a regional distribution or "eco-region" approach as opposed to a site specific approach. The ecoregion provisions fall within the "one size fits all" approach which is problematic when considering the very unique, site specific, conditions of Lee County's water resources. Lee County believes that the use of large eco-region mapping does not properly address the high degree of variability that characterizes most watersheds in Florida. For instance, Lee County is bisected by two different eco-regions. South of the Caloosahatchee River falls within one region, while north of the Caloosahatchee River falls within a different region. Lee County supports the need to define smaller regions so that criteria are established in response to local conditions, and thus water quality restoration dollars can be targeted to the local regions that are most in need. 

# Comment ID 1785-1.001.018

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida H. Use of Stream Condition Index, Rule Implementation and Compliance Issues The Rule references the Stream Condition Index. However, the Caloosahatchee River does not have a Stream Condition Index, but the Kississimmee River and Fisheating Creek do. Based on the regional standards, the Caloosahatchee River is grouped together with these other water bodies in the same ecoregion; however, the Caloosahatchee River's nutrient issues may be very different. Again, this is where site-specific conditions must be given due weight, and the "one size fits all" approach avoided.[2] [2] The Caloosahatchee River has not been placed in an appropriate Nutrient Water Region ("NWR") because there are no valid biological evaluation tools available for the watershed. Lee County believes that the Caloosahatchee basin should be part of the South Florida NWR and not the Peninsula NWR. 

# Comment ID 1797-1.001.037

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3170Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

c. Canals versus Streams The decision by the EPA to classify all canals located north of Lake Okeechobee as streams and all canals south of Lake Okeechobee as canals, is arbitrary and capricious. This decision leads to speculation that the EPA is unfamiliar with the characteristics and biota of water bodies in South Florida. 

# Comment ID 1798-1.001.008

Author Name: Wessell R. Organization: Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation Proposed nutrient criteria for streams should be applied to the south Florida region, not just the canals as currently proposed. There are numerous natural freshwater streams and rivers in south Florida including the Caloosahatchee, Orange River, Hickeys Creek, and Telegraph Creek among many others, that are freshwater above their tidal interface. These waters should be included in stream criteria instead of canal standards. 

# Comment ID 1798-1.001.011

Author Name: Wessell R. Organization: Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation The EPA rule uses an eco-region approach for grouping water bodies as opposed to a site specific approach. In our region this approach splits major regional rivers watershed, the Caloosahatchee. For south Florida in particular this approach is not reflective of the unique attributes of water influences. Instead we would recommend establishing smaller regions that might group smaller more similar tributaries together as distinct from major regional rivers and canals. 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.033

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District f. The regionalization proposed by EPA is too coarse - For its reference streams, the EPA used a coarse regionalization as the basis for the proposed criteria. Because the proposed stream criteria are not supported by a dose-response relationship the regions used for reference streams must capture more of the natural variation in stream trophic state. In EPA's proposed criteria, the regions over which a single standard applies are so large that they include a diverse variety of streams. With this variety covered by a single criterion, it is highly likely that the criterion will be inappropriately permissive or restrictive for many streams. Smaller regions are needed to ameliorate this problem.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3171Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.023

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 3. Evaluations of streams within the Tampa Bay watershed which contains portions of Pasco County showed that nutrient concentrations within listed streams were not on the whole higher than nutrients within unimpaired streams. In fact in certain conditions the levels within unimpaired streams were higher. This identifies the level to which other causative factors (hydrology, canopy, sediments, stream modification) influence the local response to nutrients. The use of the blanket reference numbers, even broken down by region, without some reasonable tie to biological response will create listing issues and will increase the number of SSACs being completed, thus increasing workload rather than decreasing. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.024

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 4. Stream criteria (and the regionalization) do not account for the existence of certain types of stream systems in Florida, i.e. blackwater/wetland dominated systems which have naturally low DO and high nutrient concentrations. In portions of Pasco County there are numerous stream systems that exhibit blackwater characteristics (Cypress Creek, New River, Trout Creek, Upper Hillsborough River). For nitrogen it is important that these types of systems are not regulated to levels below where they would be naturally. The regionalization does not account for these types of systems and does not recognize the influence of color in the system as Lakes did. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.026

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 16.The use of Nutrient Watershed Regions by USEPA is a sensible approach ; however, as more data become available, USEPA should continue refining the Nutrient Watershed Regions by identifying distinct subregions within them . SWFWMD supports USEPA's use of the Nutrient Watershed Region (page 4192, proposed rule) . However, SWFWMD recommends that USEPA continue to develop and identify distinct subregions within the current approach as data become available to provide greater resolution of nutrient watershed regions. Although USEPA's concern regarding the level of effort to develop more site-specific narrative criteria is well founded, an approach that groups water bodies that have distinct differences in water quality relationships does little to meaningfully determine true water body impairment (page 4181, proposed rule). This can result in the misplaced use of limited resources to improve water quality .

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3172Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1872.001.001

Author Name: Bond T. Organization: Comments to EPA proposed rule for numeric criteria. I support the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) rule that Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosophorus (TP) limits and criteria, will be assigned to 4 groups of waters in Florida. The Bone Valley region should not be allowed higher rates of N and P because of their mining activity. The total N and TP of this watershed should be reviewed under an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of the complete region, noting all the sources of N and P that are now contributing to the nutrient pollution downstream in streams and estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1893.001.002

Author Name: Waite S. Organization: I am concerned that the numeric values for South Florida's canals and rivers will be held to a higher standard than the north central part of Florida. I don't intend to pay for the clean up of the mess the northern areas made. 

# Comment ID 1920-1.001.028

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 39. It is my professional judgment that EPA guidance on the selection and delineation of nutrient regions was properly applied in the attached study and that EPA should adopt these nutrient regions in its final rule. 

# Comment ID 1930.001.004

Author Name: Congdon L. Organization: The only thing that concerns me in your excellent booklet, "It's Time to End the Slime," is that you haven't included instream criteria for the south water management district. We need those criteria here too. 

# Comment ID 2018-6.001.012

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3173Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa 28. EPA considers all streams within a region to require the same nutrient criteria. However, Florida has a diverse array of stream reaches and consideration should be given to the different structure and function of these stream types in order to develop meaningful criteria. 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 be considered in either the development or evaluation process. 29. 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. When does a stream become a canal? It appears that 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. EPA's stream criteria are assumed to be appropriate for all streams within a region, irrespective of stream order, watershed size, or any of the other factors that may significantly affect the stream's response to varying nutrient concentrations or loading. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.077

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries It seems inexplicable that the EPA developed its stream classifications based only on nutrient ratios and not on nutrient concentrations. Although there is a fairly large range in TN:TP ratios among the streams and defined regions, there also is a large withinclass range for the Panhandle and Peninsula classes, and the number of watersheds with data is insufficient for the other two classes to evaluate within-class variability. In addition, the average values presented indicate that all the classes except the phosphorus-rich Bone Valley region (median TN:TP of 9) are potentially P limited or have balanced N:P ratios. Classifications based on TN:TP ratios are of doubtful utility in relation to limiting nutrient conditions in streams, given the fact that large but variable fractions of the TN in Florida streams are bound to humic matter, likely from wetlands and not available for plant growth. 

# Comment ID 2388.001.003

Author Name: Feraldi N. Organization: The proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for streams should be applied to the South Florida Region as well, not just the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3174Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams canals criteria as currently proposed. There are numerous natural freshwater streams and rivers in South Florida (Caloosahatchee River, Estero River, Halfway Creek, Spring Creek, Cocohatchee River, Gordon River, Henderson Creek, and the Turner River just to name a few). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection classifies those streams and rivers as fresh up to their tidal portions and therefore, the streams criteria - not the canal criteria - should apply to those fresh water-bodies. "Ten states out of the 24 that have estuaries have adopted numeric nutrient criteria for one or more parameter for part of their estuarine water-bodies. Also, four states have created criteria for wetlands, 14 for river/streams, and 19 for lakes/reservoirs. At least 10 other instances have occurred where EPA has had to take the leading role to promulgate standards, due to a state's failure to comply with the Clean Water Act" (State adoption, 2008). 

# Response Comment IDs: 1352-1.001.061, 1352-1.001.065, 1352-1.001.116, 1352-1.001.121, 1355-2.001.037, 1355-2.001.041, 1761­ 3.001.025, 1777-2.001.086, 1769-1.001.077, 1770-1.001.039, 1771-1.001.048, 1772-1.001.042, 1773-1.001.043, 1805-3.001.023 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the Stream Condition Index (SCI) reference site selection method was arbitrary and simplistic. EPA has considered this and other comments. EPA notes that the reference set of streams used to derive the final criteria in the rule are different than the set of streams used to derive the proposed criteria, except in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). Other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference set of streams, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream set because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. As to the SCI reference site selection method, simplicity in and of itself is not generally an argument against a reference site selection method. The development of the SCI, used as the principal screening tool for the “biologically healthy” reference population, was not a simple process. The SCI incorporates a multitude of information in it, including rules for selecting least disturbed reference sites that were used to develop, score, and identify nutrient thresholds. Moreover, EPA disagrees that the method of selecting reference sites based on an SCI screen was arbitrary. EPA detailed in the TSD the lengthy, involved, scientifically defensible, and transparent process used to generate the multimetric index; a process that is based on well established EPA guidance and scientific principles. The bioassessment and bioindicator literature underlying the SCI is both broad and comprehensive. Similarly, the selection of an SCI threshold of 40 was not arbitrary, but rather based on two rigorous statistical analyses detailed in the TSD. EPA considered a variety of potential SCI endpoints, as detailed in the TSD, and concluded that a value of 40 was most defensible. EPA wanted to develop a reference selection process that was both defensible and clear. The process EPA proposed depended on easily replicable bioassessment results that are clear to identify and easy to use in selecting sites. The SCI also clearly responds to stressors, including nutrient stressors, as detailed in the TSD and citations therein. Other comments opposed the use of the SCI alone for site selection, arguing that natural conditions can influence the SCI tool performance including physical-chemical parameters such as velocity, conductivity, pH, temp, and DO which can act as natural stressors. Natural variability does influence SCI scores, as reflected in the variability around minimally impacted reference sites SCI scores. EPA considered the influence of this natural variability explicitly in the selection of the SCI threshold and this consideration is described in great detail in the TSD appendices B-13 and B-14. There is also a great deal of information about

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3175Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams human disturbance incorporated into the SCI score. For example, the development of the SCI included responsiveness to human disturbance gradients, including the Land Disturbance Index (LDI), in the selection, scoring, and threshold selection processes. So, the SCI scores inherently include considerations of human disturbance, and the selection of the threshold incorporates considerations of least-disturbed conditions. Lastly, the SCI was not used alone for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites. Other comments disagreed with the use of low dissolved oxygen as a basis to reject candidate reference sites because low oxygen may be a natural occurrence. EPA considered this and other comments. EPA retained the removal of sites listed by FDEP as impaired for dissolved oxygen for both the modified benchmark and SCI reference populations as detailed in the final rule and TSD. EPA rejected sites because of low dissolved oxygen where those sites had been included by FDEP on Florida’s list of impaired waters, pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA. FDEP is not required to include waterbodies on the section 303(d) list where it demonstrates that concentrations of dissolved oxygen were measured below the numeric criteria due solely to natural conditions. Without such a demonstration, EPA must rely on FDEP’s identification of impairment when considering whether to select candidate reference sites. Concerns related to FDEP’s section 303(d) list should be addressed through the 303(d) listing process, which is independent of the nutrient criteria development process. Similarly, any comments about the appropriateness of Florida’s dissolved oxygen criteria should be addressed in FDEP’s criterion development process and not the nutrient criteria process. Some comments objected to the rejection of WBIDs listed as impaired for mercury or coliforms. EPA did not exclude WBIDs that were listed as impaired for any constituent other than dissolved oxygen and nutrients. This is detailed in the draft and final rule and TSD. Lastly, with regards to reference site selection, some comments sought clarification on the SCI reference approach. EPA provided a lengthy and clear description of the straightforward process used for selecting the SCI Population reference sites, which included a detailed description of the development of the SCI itself, in section 2 of the proposed rule TSD. 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.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3176Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

A number of comments disagreed with the sufficiency of data used by EPA. EPA considered these and other comments. The first assertion was that EPA used limited data. EPA considered all available data of defensible quality. For both the proposed and final rule for streams, this included screening and evaluating water chemistry data from more than 11,000 samples from over 6,000 sites statewide, and evaluating biological data of more than 2,000 samples from over 1,100 streams. A review of these data is included in the TSD and data files were also made available to the public. A second assertion was that data were collected during a fewclimatically abnormal years. It is unclear what is meant by climatically abnormal as Florida is typified by highly variable interannual climatic conditions (see figure below with annual precipitation data). Biological data were collected from 2004 to 2008, a period which, according to precipitation data from the Florida Climate Center, included years with annual average precipitationabove the 75th percentile of long-term average annual precipitation, years with annual averages below the 25th percentile of longterm average annual precipitation, and years with annual averages equal to the long-term average annual precipitation. Chemistry data were collected during an even longer period encompassing a similarly balanced number of variable climatic conditions. EPA concludes from this that the data used to derive numeric nutrient criteria incorporate the full range of hydrologic conditions representative of the variability typically observed in Florida including high, low and average conditions and that the range of conditions represented by the data actually reinforces the defensibility of the resultant criteria. There were comments that weighting or averaging was needed when using data from multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. In response to this and similar comments, EPA considered the autocorrelation issues involved in using site averages for sites located closely in space and explored the use of WBID averages. For the final rule, EPA has decided to use WBID averages instead of site averages, which reduces the effect of spatial autocorrelation. The reanalysis and justification are detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. The supplemental notice included analyses of WBID based spatial units. Lastly, EPA received comment that the data used were of varied detection limits and methodologies and included unqualified data. All the data used were verified by FDEPs approved Data Useability requirements as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA received several comments that disagreed with the criteria determination process using the reference condition approach. EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s Benchmark Reference Approach, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream approach because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. The first comment within this general topic was that use of the upper bound of the distribution for “healthy” streams compromises the criteria. EPA considered several options for percentiles and incorporated the concern reflected in this comment into its consideration of which percentiles to use in the final rule. For the final rule, other than the West Central Region, EPA is using the 90th percentile of the modified Benchmark Approach WBID averages within each region because of EPA’s confidence in the screening of that reference population. In the West Central, EPA is using the 75th percentile of SCI approach WBID averages because of reduced confidence in the quality of sites within that population and the reduced sample size. The details of this decision and analysis are included in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA concluded that a reference population typified by either healthy biological conditions or least-disturbed conditions provides EPA with the confidence that these are least-disturbed sites and that the use of upper bound percentiles from this population to establish the criteria was acceptable. A second related comment was that no analysis had been provided to support the 75th percentile as an accurate statistic for defining the distribution of reference sites and that its selection was a policy and not technical decision. As stated above, in response to this and similar comments, EPA revisited the percentile selection process and decided on the percentiles indicated above. EPA defends the selection of an upper percentile of biologically healthy and least disturbed populations of values as technically defensible for protecting streams. Again, EPA provided a detailed argument of why that is so, related to the fact that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3177Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the nutrient dynamics of such sites are, implicitly, consistent with that found in sites supporting designated uses. EPA also affirms that the 75th percentile is indeed a statistical characteristic of a population distribution. EPA agrees that the final decision to use a specific percentile does include the exercise of judgment, but that judgment is not arbitrary but rather is based on a consideration of risk to uses based on the degree to which the basis population represents conditions expected to support uses and a consideration of errors in making use attainment decisions based on the resultant values. This judgment is informed by technical information as well. Lastly, some comments asked why a 90th percentile was not used, as suggested by FDEP. Again, EPA has finalized streams criteria for most regions using the 90th percentile when there are sufficient data available to provide EPA with enough confidence that the reference site population is least-disturbed, and closely reflective of minimally impacted conditions. In the West Central Region, where fewer reference sites are available, EPA has continued to set the criteria at the 75th percentile because there is less confidence that these sites reflect least-disturbed conditions. In the absence of a clear, un-confounded stressor-response relationship, EPA elected to use a reference condition approach to develop protective numeric criteria. For the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as noted above for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified benchmark population of reference sites.

Comment IDs: 0896-2.001.010, 0896-2.001.014, 1130.001.004, 1271.001.002, 1288-1.001.001, 1288-1.001.002, 1319.001.006, 1321.001.009, 1352-1.001.060, 1352-1.001.063, 1352-1.001.110, 1352-1.001.112, 1352-1.001.115, 1352-1.001.118, 1352­ 1.001.179, 1353-1.001.015, 1354-1.001.002, 1355-2.001.036, 1355-2.001.039, 1355-2.001.088, 1364-1.001.008, 1431-1.001.023, 1431-1.001.024, 1434-1.001.020, 1480-2.001.011, 1481-1.001.021, 1481-1.001.023, 1532-1.001.016, 1671-3.001.007, 1715­ 3.001.046, 1722-1.001.003, 1761-3.001.022, 1774-1.001.031, 1777-2.001.019, 1785-1.001.012, 1798-1.001.011, 1801-1.001.033, 1836.001.026, 2233-1.001.077, 1805-3.001.024 Response: EPA received comments disagreeing with how the Agency decided to classify streams into Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWRs). EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, EPA has decided to split the Panhandle Region into West and East regions and to restrict the size of the West Central (previously Bone Valley) Region. There were several comments related to intraregional classification. The first comment was that the approach for regionalization was too broad, that criteria will not protect the diversity and unique characteristics of waters that vary within regions, and that site-specific studies and criteria would account for more variability. As outlined in the nutrient criteria guidance, EPA recognizes that classification aims to reduce as much natural variability within classes as possible. Such classification efforts must weigh the trade-off between specificity, which would be optimized if each site were considered separately, and resource requirements and data availability, which clearly limit how fine a classification is possible. EPA considered a variety of regionalization schemes and has decided on the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3178Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams regionalization described above and detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA believes the regionalization is protective of Florida streams since EPA considered the full range of variability in its selection of sites and captures that variability in its selection of the SCI thresholds based on inter-site variability among reference sites and in its selection of the upper bound percentiles of the reference population.

A second comment related to stream classification was that 4th order streams are different from 1st order streams in structure and function and in responses to nutrient loads. EPA agrees that size can affect stream processes and EPA considered stream size, but did not find a compelling basis for differentiating criteria based on stream size for the final rule since stronger differences were attributable to interregional classes as detailed in the proposed rule and final rule TSDs. EPA would not rule out regional refinement in the future based on stream size should compelling evidence support such a change. The federal site-specific alternative criteria procedure established in the rule may be used for such changes when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. A third comment is that stream classifications should have been based on concentrations and not N:P ratios. EPA agrees that N:P ratios along should not be the sole basis for classification which is why EPA considered concentrations as well as N:P ratios in its classification and detailed this in the draft rule and final rule TSDs. There were also several comments related to interregional classification elements. Some comments argued that soil and geologic differences were related to P but not N and, therefore, were not appropriate bases for NWR for nitrogen. EPA considered many factors related to classification and considered several classification options. Clearly, there are differences among the regions with respect to geologically reactive P deposits, especially highlighted in differences between the North Central and West Central regions and other regions. EPA revisited the regionalization associated with the geologically reactive Hawthorn Group in response to these and other comments and selected the regionalization described above for both TP and TN, which is described in detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent. EPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion at this time. However, EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a color-TN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA’s analysis of the stream TN data indicated that the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than non-Panhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. Other

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3179Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams comments suggested that geology was an appropriate basis for regionalization, but that biological comparisons should also be used to identify regional differences. EPA’s regionalization began with a framework developed by FDEP that was based on biology. The FDEP effort considered bioregions from their bioassessment programs as one element in their classification framework. Not surprisingly, the final EPA NWR classification is similar to the bio-regionalization developed by FDEP for their SCI tool, with some obvious differences dictated by geological factors. Lastly, EPA received comments that nutrient availability is controlled by soil chemistry, geology, and hydrogeology and that classes should be based on these factors for areas with adequate supporting data. EPA agrees and considered all of these factors, data availability, and appropriate response characteristics in establishing the NWR classes. Soil chemistry reflects underlying geology, which was an element used by EPA in developing the NWRs. Similarly, EPA considered ecoregions which themselves rely heavily on geology, soil type, and hydrology. Importantly, however, EPA also considered trends in observed nutrient distributions to verify and guide classification. It is the behavior of nutrients that manifests the effects of the major classification drivers, so EPA relied on this to help guide final class selection.

Comment IDs: 1130.001.004, 1353-1.001.017, 1355-2.001.090, 1434-1.001.022, 1614-1.001.003 Response: EPA also received comments related to implementation. The first theme within these comments was related to assessment errors and conflicts between biological conditions and impairment decisions which could result from EPA’s criteria. EPA has considered all these and other comments related to this first theme. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the Benchmark Approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula regions. This modified Benchmark Approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed landcover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. Because EPA has relied on this more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified in that region. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3180Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. In the same vein, EPA received comments arguing that, under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, some reference or pristine waterbodies would be deemed to be impaired. Some of this perception seems to have been the result of analyses by FDEP and others of the number of FDEP reference waterbodies that would not meet the proposed criteria. First, there are likely no pristine waterbodies, defined as that reflecting the original pre-human state, left in Florida. The impacts of centuries of human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere have made the existence of pristine conditions essentially extinct in Florida. Even Florida’s original benchmark site population, presented as pristine, contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor, however, EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered that several of FDEP’s benchmark reference sites were included on the State’s section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various reasons, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairments. The salient point is that any conclusion of the number of “reference” waterbodies that would be deemed impaired depends on a careful and accurate depiction of reference and the conclusions using the population originally presented by FDEP presented issues that were problematic. EPA is using a modified Benchmark Approach for its final criteria that addresses many of these problematic screening issues. That modified approach is described above and in more detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. Also related to this first theme, EPA disagrees with comments that assert impairment of reference sites based on error rate analyses described in the comments. EPA views the type of analysis suggested in the comment as inappropriate and flawed because these analyses proposed calculating error rates using traditional statistical assumptions about attainment and non-attainment. EPA observed that there are no true independent “attaining” or “non-attaining” populations upon which to test the criteria because criteria do not yet exist, therefore these tests are invalid. The concept of false positive and false negative rates is predicated on the assumption that an independent assessment of the attainment and non-attainment is available. For example, to estimate the false positive rate of a diagnostic test, physicians observe whether patients actually contract a disease. In the case of nutrient criteria, the reference distribution is the only means of defining attainment and non-attainment. Hence, any discussion of false positive or false negative rates is not relevant. Further under this first implementation theme, some commenters argued that some streams would meet the criteria yet still display unhealthy biological conditions and that, therefore, implementation of the criteria should require biological validation that waters attaining the criteria are in fact healthy. EPA agrees it is possible that some streams would meet nutrient criteria yet still display unhealthy conditions but disagrees with the reasons why and the implication. There are many stressors that threaten aquatic life. Nutrient criteria are meant to protect against the effect of elevated nutrients on aquatic life. The criteria cannot control for other stressors which may also result in unhealthy conditions. Moreover, it may be that some streams meet the criteria and still contain unhealthy conditions due to nutrients. The approach for criteria derivation used here could potentially result in nutrient impacts below the proposed criteria. EPA has attempted to minimize that risk with the approach used in the final rule based on stringent criteria, biological screens, and higher percentiles but it is not a guarantee that our generally applicable criteria are most appropriate for every individual stream. In a case where the proposed criteria are proven not to protect aquatic life from nutrient effects, then site-specific criteria can be set to provide more protective criteria. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3181Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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. Requiring independent validation of biological impairment would, ostensibly, invalidate the need for protective nutrient criterion to protect aquatic life. The last argument under the first implementation theme was that EPA’s proposed approach for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria assumed elevated nutrient levels are responsible for impairment when they may not be and/or that it is impossible to determine if designated uses will be protected. EPA disagrees that it is impossible to determine that elevated concentrations will impair uses or if uses will be protected by setting the final criteria. 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 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 decided to use the reference approach described based on the specific SCI approach in the West Central Region and the modified Benchmark Approach in all other regions, following EPA peer reviewed guidance for deriving criteria. Such an approach concludes that concentrations observed in least disturbed reference populations known to be unimpaired by nutrient impacts would continue to protect designated uses from nutrient impacts. The basis for this is articulated in the EPA nutrient criteria guidance documents. As noted above, the final rule provides flexibility for the any entity to submit SSAC for waterbodies where additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The second comment theme under implementation relates to the cost of regulation. Commenters argue that local and state governments will spend a lot of money to come up with site-specific criteria within the very broad regions established to set the proposed criteria and that this will squander resources that could be used to correct true impairments. EPA disagrees and believes the resultant criteria will be sufficiently protective across the broad NWRs and the criteria will identify true impairments, obviating the need for site-specific criteria except where necessary. Indeed, EPA expended great effort with the classification element to minimize the need for site-specific criteria. Where local and state government determines a SSAC is necessary to most appropriately address specific waterbodies, the development of those SSAC should cost roughly the same as what it would cost to develop the appropriate limits under the narrative nutrient criteria. The extent of impacts due to nutrient enrichment in Florida and across the nation is substantial. EPA agrees that the efforts to solve this pressing problem will involve an investment of resources. But EPA hopes all parties agree such investments are necessary to protect our vital resources from the pervasive effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution that is clearly evident in Florida and across the country.

Comment IDs: 0601.001.004, 0644.001.006, 0644.001.008, 0650.001.002, 0773.001.004, 0854.001.004, 0855.001.006,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3182Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams
0856.001.003, 0949.001.004, 1872.001.001, 1893.001.002, 0730.001.003, 0739.001.007, 0814.001.002, 0884.001.001, 0968.001.002, 1005.001.004, 1368-1.001.007, 1475-1.001.002, 1778-1.001.002 Response: EPA received comments critical of evenness in the derivation of criteria across regions. The first comments suggested that differences in criteria depending across regions were unfair and punished regions that have been doing a good job of protecting their waters. EPA considered these comments and disagrees. For the proposed and final rules, EPA’s regionalization analysis did not consider effort expended to protect waters in determining the NWRs. The regionalization process is meant to reduce natural variability associated with geographic features important in determining instream nutrient concentrations, such as geology, hydrology, and soil types. There are certainly associations between human density, activity and water quality. But these associations do not factor into the regional classifications. Other comments expressed concern that Panhandle criteria were 2-4 times less than natural area concentrations. EPA considered this concern diligently and this is why the agency carefully identified sites for use in the reference condition approach that reflected least-disturbed and biologically healthy conditions. EPA argues that to the extent that samples from truly natural areas are reflected in the reference population, resultant criteria should minimize the risk of identifying these as impaired. In response to this and similar comments, EPA reconsidered classification that parts of the Panhandle appeared to have elevated nutrient concentrations due to natural geological factors. Consequently, the final rule regionalization splits the Panhandle into West and East regions to better reflect the natural differences across that region and reduce the errors expressed in these comments. EPA also received comment that the same standard should be set for the entire State so those with lower criteria don’t have to pay additional costs of treatment. EPA reaffirms that the object of classification was to reduce natural variability associated with geographic features important in determining instream nutrient concentrations, such as geology, hydrology, and soil types. Moreover, under the Clean Water Act, EPA cannot consider economic factors in establishing criteria to protect designated uses, so the effective cost of treatment of polluted water was not considered in deriving the criteria. EPA also received comments about inconsistencies in NWR descriptions and maps. One comment was that the method for assigning streams to regions was not consistent between shapefiles for NWRs and the Appendix B-18 list of estuarine DPV watersheds. EPA notes that DPVs to protect estuaries are no longer being considered under this rule, but will consider these concerns in linking any future estuarine DPV calculations to the NWR stream coverages and will reconcile any disparities at that time. EPA also received comment that there were inconsistencies between text of the report and the TSD -- specifically with regards to the Peninsula and Palm Beach County. EPA delineated NWRs using WBID coverages that adhere to watershed boundaries and these watershed boundaries were the intended boundaries. EPA revisited the southern Peninsula boundaries in response to these and other comments and has attempted to reconcile these issues and to produce unified language across the final rule and final rule TSD documents.

Comment IDs: 1352-1.001.062, 1352-1.001.117, 1355-2.001.038, 1355-2.001.082, 1476-2.001.073, 1642-1.001.006, 1769­ 1.001.013, 1798-1.001.008, 1930.001.004, 2388.001.003, 1770-1.001.033, 1771-1.001.040, 1771-1.001.042, 1772-1.001.034, 1772­ 1.001.036, 1773-1.001.037, 1797-1.001.037, 2018-6.001.012 Response: EPA received comments regarding the discrimination between canals and streams, channelized streams and natural channels, and the applicability of stream criteria to canals in the NWR and in South Florida. First 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. There is no difference in the current Class I

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3183Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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. As for canals in South Florida, EPA has deferred rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in South Florida to 2011. EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuarine and coastal waters, including inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida, by November 14, 2011. EPA will consider these comments as it moves forward in developing the Agency’s proposed rule. EPA encourages commenters to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding inland flowing fresh waters in South Florida. EPA also received comments on ambiguities in language and clarification of language across the document. Some commenters suggested there was inconsistency in the use of names to describe NWRs and those to describe stream bioregions. EPA agrees that there was some inconsistency and has considered these comments in revising the rule and TSD. EPA points out that there may be inconsistencies between bioregions and final NWR since bioregions are related but distinct classifications, the former for developing the SCI bioassessment tool and the latter for nutrient criteria. Others noted that nutrients may be construed to refer to all forms of nutrients. EPA disagrees and has been explicit in stating that the criteria being set here apply to TN and TP to protect waters in the State from nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. Lastly, some commented on ambiguities in the language used to characterize how and where the proposed criteria are applied. EPA has considered this concern in revisions to the final rule and TSD and will be as explicit and consistent as possible.

Comment IDs: 1364-1.001.014, 1671-3.001.016, 1785-1.001.018 Response: EPA received a series of comments recommending changes to its proposed regionalizations. The first was that given the absence of biological tools for the Caloosahatchee River, the River should not be placed in the Peninsula NWR. EPA disagrees that there is an absence of developed biological tools or application of biological tools for the Caloosahatchee. FDEP has sampled the Caloosahatchee watershed at more than 20 stations for biological condition. EPA used samples from these sites as part of the derivation of the proposed and final criteria; biological data are adequately available for this river basin. The second set of comments related to recommendations to use 4 P regions and 2 N regions. EPA agrees that there is a basis for reconsidering the regionalization and has considered this and a number of similar comments when revisiting the regions for the final classification effort. This included revisiting both P and N regionalizations. This reanalysis in large part focused on geological formations with P active geologies, as indicated in these comments. For the final rule, EPA has established 5 TP regions, splitting the Panhandle into a Panhandle West and Panhandle East and restricting the proposed size of the West Central to be most consistent with maps of P active geologies and watershed boundaries. The bases for these regions are explained in the final rule TSD. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3184Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and StreamsEPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a colorbased TN criterion at this time. However, EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a colorTN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA’s analysis of the stream TN data indicated that the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than non-Panhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. The last comment in this theme relates to including certain WBIDs in the South Florida Regions because canals are the dominant water feature in those WBIDS and therefore they should not be in the Peninsula. EPA disagrees 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. There is no 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 the regions. 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 (as Class III), then it is not appropriate for EPA to make a distinction in the numeric translation of the protective narrative criterion. Therefore, all class III waters in the watersheds addressed by this rule will be included in the appropriate geographic NWR.

Comment IDs: 0648.001.006, 0930.001.002, 1197.001.008, 1356-1.001.006, 1920-1.001.028 Response: EPA received a variety of positive comments that are acknowledged here. Most of these commenters argued that the proposed criteria were scientifically sound because they were based on biologically healthy streams and that this approach was better than least-disturbed based approaches. EPA agrees that the biologically healthy reference approach is scientifically defensible for criteria derivation and used that approach to derive criteria for the West Central NWR. EPA also considers its modification to FDEP’s least-disturbed based approach to be a valid approach for criteria derivation. Others commented that EPA’s nutrient criteria guidance for the approach used does not require proof of a specific stressor-response to establish criteria. EPA agrees. 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 also agrees with those who commented that criteria are required to restore and protect waters to unimpaired conditions.

References:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3185Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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. Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542. Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429. Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643-657. Cross, W.F., J.B. Wallace, A.D. Rosemond, and S.L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565. Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427. Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158. Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477. 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 production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142. Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368. Gaiser, E.E., J.C. Trexler, J.H. Richards, D.L.Childers, D. Lee, A.L. Edwards, L.J. Scinto, K. Jayachandran, G.B. Noe, and R.D. Jones, 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723. Lohman, K., J.R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23. Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3186Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117. Notestein, S.K., T.K. Frazer, M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G. S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386. Rosemond, A.D., P.J. Mulholland, and J.W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J.L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289. Slavik, K., B.J. Peterson, L.A. Deegan, W.B. Bowden, A.E. Hershey, J.E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939-954. Stelzer, R.S. and G.A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367. 

# III.C.2.Q.1 - METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING EPA’S PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR STREAMS QUESTION 1 Comment ID 0590.001.004

Author Name: Conner R. Organization: Lakeland Water Utilities (3) The State of Florida and EPA do recognize the Bone Valley region where the Alafia River originates is different from the rest of the state. The difference noted is far less than what truly exists. The Bone Valley is basically a shallow sand layer separated from limestone by a layer of phosphatic clay. The phosphate nuggets in this clay have been the target of strip mining operations since the 1890's. Even before it was strip mined, the region's water was high in phosphorous. During the long-ago mining operations, deep lakes were created, the soils were restratified (bringing phosphate rich materials to the surface) and the flow of creeks redirected through the disrupted landscape for the convenience of the miners. The extent of the historical disruption is so great that the State has been unable to find a viable candidate for a reference stream anywhere in this area. The idea that free phosphate can be reduced here is likened to the idea of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3187Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams reducing sodium on the Bonneville Flats. The City utilizes an artificial wetlands to attain our low total nitrogen. These wetlands were constructed on land that was previously mined for phosphate and then utilized as a waste clay settling system for that industry. Flow from this site moves through ditches and old mine pits to the present channel of long-since relocated Ellis Branch. This stream flows to the North Prong of the Alafia River. Due to the natural TP throughout this region, our past and present NPDES permits did not contain TP as regulated criteria. This is justifiable, as no efforts on our part would achieve significant impact on the environment. Having present entities unduly burdened in a vain attempt to restore to "better than naturally existing" conditions and rectify the results of the then legal practices of prior decades and centuries is unfair. It is doubly so when the no effort is made to remediate for the activities carried out on the lands of others and for the benefit of long-ago private parties. 

# Comment ID 1032.001.002

Author Name: Angelo P. Organization: And finally, as a last comment, I question your decision to adopt more relaxed standards for the Bone Valley watershed. While the area is a phosphate area, and I recognize that, it's also clear that mining activities, which are allowed to extend all the way up to the borders of our rivers in that area, are going to tend to unnecessarily release phosphate into the streams, and I request that you take another look at that decision. Thank you very much. 

# Comment ID 1033.001.001

Author Name: Medintz M. Organization: Good afternoon. My name is Marvin Medintz, M-E-D-I-N-T-Z. I live in Placida, at the end of beautiful, formerly pristine Lemon Bay. Before I forget, I want to concur specifically with the comments of the previous speaker on the standards for Bone Valley. That's a problem that's going to blow up in everybody's face, if it isn't handled dramatically and quickly. 

# Comment ID 1050.001.008

Author Name: Cooper J. Organization: A very important point that I'm very extremely concerned about on your slide, you talked about the Bone Valley area, and you had a special color for it. I'm not sure I agree with the color, but anyway, the Bone Valley area currently has the lowest water quality standards in the state. I don't understand that. If anything, it needs to be reversed because that's

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3188Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams where all the phosphate is being mined, has been mined in the past, and 150,000 acres are proposed in the future, as Commissioner Judah pointed out. Now, if you can enforce those standards, we're not going to have to sue them in federal court, and we don't want to do that, and we would appreciate your help. 

# Comment ID 1086.001.001

Author Name: Cooper J. Organization: Protect Our Watersheds Your proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida contain much more lenient standards for the Bone Valley. The Bone Valley TP levels are proposed at 739 ug/L versus 359 ug/L for North Central (the other phosphate mining area) and 43 and 107 ug/L for the Panhandle and Peninsula respectively. In other words the Bone Valley limits are over twice the limits for the other Florida mining region and 7 or 14 times the limits for other areas in the state. EPA states that the Bone Valley and the Suwannee River watershed were recognized as having phosphate rich soils, purportedly accounting for the more generous standards. Elsewhere EPA recognized that the Bone Valley had only 4 benchmark sites and its data is apt to be less reliable in the degree to which they are based on least-disturbed conditions. 75 FR 4196. EPA specifically asked whether the phosphate rich watersheds should be separated out for purpose of the approach taken. 75 FR 4193. 

# Comment ID 1086.001.002

Author Name: Cooper J. Organization: Protect Our Watersheds There is substantial evidence that the Bone Valley has been substantially impacted by phosphate mining itself, rather than simply the natural presence of phosphate soils. The US Geological Survey has performed a series of studies of the area, with the latest being released in the fall of 2009. That study, conducted at the request of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, is entitled, "Hydrologic Conditions that Influence Streamflow Losses in a Karst Region of the Upper Peace River, Polk County, Florida", Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5140, and it outlines the many mining impacts to flows in the Peace River, including the actual drying up of the river at numerous locations. A copy of the study is being provided to you with a physical copy of this letter. It is also readily available on the USGS website, under the tabs identifying 2009 studies in Florida. The USGS states that extracted mined lands are the largest land use in Polk County (the heart of Bone Valley), at 36%. Id. at 10, 14. Within the Upper Peace River basin "the dominant reclaimed landforms produced during surface mining are clay-settling areas that can cover hundreds of acres and exceed 40 ft in depth. Many of these clay-settling areas line both sides of the upper Peace River floodplain from the cities of Bartow to Fort Meade....These clay-settling areas possess entirely different physical properties, in terms of water storage and transmission, than the landscape prior to mining." Id. at 15. The USGS continues, "the sandy-clay soils of mined sites, or arents, are less pervious because of the increase in clay content at the surface horizons that tends to limit surface infiltration....Postmining areas contain a large amount of clay waste byproduct, which typically

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3189Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams occupies about 40 to 60 percent of the postmined landscape. ... Because of the low hydraulic conductivity of clay, groundwater recharge and movement through a clay-settling area can be substantially less than soils under natural conditions." Id.


# Comment ID 1086.001.003

Author Name: Cooper J. Organization: Protect Our Watersheds Mining has contributed to a substantial drop in the potentiometric surface (groundwater level) in the Upper Peace River. Id. at 30, 32. Mining has resulted in removal of the surficial aquifer which limits the amount of infiltration and recharge to underlying aquifers or the river. Id. at 25. The decline in groundwater levels, on top of rainfall deficits and large groundwater withdrawals by mining and other uses, have led to a decline in streamflow from the 1970s to the end of the study period in 2003. Id. at 35. The area of the Upper Peace is a Karst landscape. Karst development occurs as a result of the chemical dissolution of the soluble layers in the limestone and dolomite by slightly acidic water (pH below 7.0). These acidic waters enlarge the natural fractures and pores, creating fissures, cavities and sinkholes. Limestone dissolves at a pH below 7.0 and tributaries to the Peace contaminated by acid mine waste in the 1950s may have contributed to this dissolution. Id. at 23. Today, during dry periods caused by pumpage or hydrologic stresses waters stored in the intermediate aquifer drains down into the Upper Floridan aquifer. This in turn allows the river water to drain into empty cavities in the intermediate aquifer, the result being the sinkholes which have been observed to drain the River dry. Id. at 67. The USGS study also reported that water quality downstream of the mining outfalls and clay-settling areas is influenced by these mining outfall and CSA areas. These altered surface waters have also altered the chemical makeup of the aquifers themselves due to the Karst landscape. Id. at 73-74. 

# Comment ID 1086.001.004

Author Name: Cooper J. Organization: Protect Our Watersheds The USGS concludes that declines in streamflows are attributed to rainfall deficits, large groundwater withdrawals that have lowered the potentiometric surfaces of the underlying aquifers, changes in the natural drainage patterns of contributing streams to the Peace River, altered surface sediments and karst features that have enhanced the loss of streamflow. Id. at 77. The upper Peace is located in a basin substantially altered by phosphate mining. Mined lands make up the largest land-use category. Previously mined areas with clay-waste product which typically makes up 40-60 percent of the post-mined landscape, or other altered landscape associated with mining, lead to groundwater recharge which is substantially less than the pre-mining conditions. Flow from contributing tributaries has declined because the natural drainage of the tributaries has been altered by phosphate mining or agriculture, with the natural conditions replaced by ditches and clay-settling areas which lose water to evaporation. Id. at 77-78.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3190Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Your analysis must take account, not just of the phosphorus-rich soils, but of these historic mining impacts. At least four impacts are suggested. First, the very significant streamflow reduction must have an impact on the concentrations of TP. Unnaturally high concentrations are undoubtedly the result in part of the lack of normal streamflow dilution, which in turn is the fault of the mining activity. 

# Comment ID 1086.001.005

Author Name: Cooper J. Organization: Protect Our Watersheds Second, the presence of mined areas immediately bordering both sides of the River suggests the release of mined materials directly to the Rivers. Indeed, a recent state permit for mining demonstrates that the state continues to allow mining right up to the edge of streams. Notice of Disturbance for parcels at Mosaic's Four Corners Lonesome Mine. MOS FCL-LMR (17) (March 2, 2010) (329.2 acres). An aerial of parcel 17 showing mining limits right up to both sides of the creek is enclosed with the physical copy of this letter.



# Comment ID 1086.001.006

Author Name: Cooper J. Organization: Protect Our Watersheds Third, the extraordinary delays in reclamation allowed by the state, see Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Rate of Reclamation Report (only 28% and 13% mandatory acres reclaimed and released for Mosaic and CF respectively), www.dep.state.fl.us/water/mines/docs/2008-rate-of-reclamation.pdf , as well as the existence of vast acreage which will never be reclaimed because it was mined before reclamation was mandatory, provide extensive opportunity for phosphorus contaminated runoff. Even reclaimed lands are the likely cause of continued phosphorus discharges as the mining companies fairly frequently obtain permission to go back and remine previously reclaimed lands.



# Comment ID 1086.001.007

Author Name: Cooper J. Organization: Protect Our Watersheds And finally, the USGS study noted above specifically referred to water quality impacts downstream of mining outfalls. The extraordinary difference in standards proposed for the Suwannee and Bone Valley areas, both of which have

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3191Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams phosphorus rich soils, is itself evidence of the severe impacts of the Bone Valley mining activity itself on TP. Many speakers at your hearings commented on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before further mining is permitted by the Corps of Engineers. We have called for that EIS ourselves, and our most recent March 19, 2010 letter to the Corps and USEPA is attached. USEPA has also urged the Corps to perform an EIS addressing cumulative and areawide impacts. USEPA's most recent letters on this point, dated April 8 and March 2010, are attached. We thank you for your commitment to numeric nutrient standards which we support. As many of us said at your hearings, it's way past time. We urge, however, that your standards for Bone Valley TP be no higher than those for your Suwannee River, North Central, area as there is substantial evidence that your Bone Valley data is compromised by releases due to phosphate mining activity itself.


# Comment ID 1087-1.001.012

Author Name: Pearson S. Organization: City of Gainesville Public Works Department Physiography - The introduction contained a brief description of the terrain and geology of area of Alachua County where Gainesville exists. The Technical Support Document for the proposed Nutrient Criteria describes the development of the Nutrient Watershed Regions. It appears that Gainesville is partly in the North Central and Peninsula regions. The question being considered by DPW is "Whether the combination of climate, geology, soils, vegetation, nutrient regimes and biological communities of the ecoregion and bioregion in this predominately stream to sink area is significant enough in terms of size and different enough in terms of ecological impacts to merit it own Nutrient Watershed Region." The background evidence leading to this question are: 1) DPW members have traveled the state and are cognizant of the many differences between Gainesville stream to sink characteristic and the majority of the peninsula that lies south of it with flat terrain and numerous lakes that dominate the inland region and the estuaries that dominate the coastal areas. 2) A Florida Geological Survey map from 1985 identifies a large region in southwest Alachua County as "Bare or Thinly Covered Limestone" and is otherwise described as the karst feature of the region. This geologic feature extends into Levy and Marion counties as well. Computations indicate that the area of the karst feature is on the order of 950 to 1000 square miles in these counties or about 2% of the states 58,560 square miles. 3) Combined these two considerations seem to indicate that a special evaluation is merited to discern if there is a difference and, if so, that an additional Nutrient Watershed Region is needed. 

# Comment ID 1174.001.002

Author Name: Reske S. Organization: And I would personally like it if the EPA and the DEP would consider lowering the proposed levels of phosphorus for the Bone Valley region.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3192Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1217-2.001.016

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 2. Mosaic's Comments on Streams

a. Instream Protective Values The EPA Rule sets criteria intended to protect the biological health of streams, dividing the State into four NWRs: the Panhandle, the Bone Valley, the Peninsula and North Central. Mosaic commends EPA for setting IPVs by watershed, which is somewhat more "site-specific" than a unitary, State-wide set of criteria. For example, the watershed approach enables properly distinct analyses of the circumstance posed by nutrient discharges in areas of the State with high levels of naturally-occurring phosphorous, such as the Bone Valley. Mosaic also supports EPA's decision to use a greater population of reference streams for the Bone Valley than was used by FDEP in its effort to establish numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1304-1.001.032

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. The report "Naturally-Occurring Phosphorus-Bearing Sediments in the Eastern Florida Panhandle," authored by Gary Maddox of FDEP's Groundwater Protection program, details that "...phosphate-bearing sands, clays and carbonate rocks occur at or near land surface across the northern tier of the eastern Florida panhandle...". The report concludes that (a) the deposits originated as beds of marine sediment deposited millions of years ago and (b) in areas where the Hawthorn sediment occurs at land surface and in areas downhill, surface waterbodies are elevated in phosphorus. The report includes a map (see Figure below) of surface water reference sites with elevated phosphorus levels well in exceedance of the criterion for TP proposed by the Agency in these areas. It is arbitrary (and contrary to Florida law) for the Agency to impose nutrient standards on Florida lakes and streams that are lower than naturally-occurring nutrient levels. Further, as noted by Entrix, it is illogical to presume that healthy (per SCI) streams meeting designated uses in an area of higher, though naturally occurring, TP levels are somehow biologically different than streams in other regions. That is, there is no logical reason to believe that streams meeting designated uses and having acceptable SCI scores but which are located outside of the Eastern Panhandle region would be expected to be degraded (as judged by the same SCI measure) if their TP concentrations were comparable to those in the Eastern Panhandle region. (Entrix at Section 1.2) Original comment letter contains additional information in the map of naturally occurring phosphorus levels in the Panhandle, Peninsula, and North Central Regions of Florida on page 12. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3193Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The EPA has proposed IPVs for TP of 0.043 mg/L, 0.107 mg/L, and 0.359 mg/L for the Panhandle, Peninsula, and North Central regions of Florida. As shown on the map, the presence of naturally occurring phosphorus deposits make restoration to these levels impossible, leaving the surface water impaired indefinitely. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.066

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams

• Particular attention was given to characterizing the differences in geology among the regions including the naturally phosphorus rich soils associated with the Bone Valley formation. EPA "would expect from a general ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally occurring, nutrient rich conditions, would be supported". This statement suggests that the biological community has adapted to what would in other systems be characterized as excessive concentration of TP. However, no empirical evidence is given to support this assertion and no biological comparisons are provided to examine the intra and inter-regional differences in the biotic communities. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.113

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Regarding NWR delineations; the identification of regional TN criteria, which isolates the Bone Valley from the Peninsula Region, is not appropriate as the regionalization was associated with soil conditions reflective of Phosphorus issues not nitrogen. Additionally, the Suwannee River has been shown to have a phosphorous-rich geological formation along with the Alapaha and Santa Fe River drainages. In general, more NWRs are better and can be more tuned to local nutrient conditions. Previous studies (see EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0068) have proposed up to 47 regions (Figure 6). Geology should be included in NWR delineations, although many other factors (e.g. wetlands, hydrology) also need to be included. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6: Example TN map from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596­ 0068 which delineated 47 regions based on water chemistry, hydrology, and physiography. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.183

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Regarding NWR delineations; the identification of regional TN criteria, which isolates the Bone Valley from the Peninsula Region, is not appropriate as the regionalization was associated with soil conditions reflective of Phosphorus

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3194Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams issues not nitrogen. The Suwannee River has been shown to have a phosphorous-rich geological formation along with the Alapaha and Sante Fe River drainages. In general, more NWRs are better and can be more tuned to local nutrient conditions. Previous studies (see EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0068) have proposed up to 47 regions. Geology should be included in NWR delineations, although many other factors (e.g. wetlands, hydrology) also need to be included. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.042

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Particular attention was given to characterizing the differences in geology among the regions including the naturally phosphorus rich soils associated with the Bone Valley formation. EPA "would expect from a general ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally occurring, nutrient rich conditions, would be supported". This statement suggests that the biological community has adapted to what would in other systems be characterized as excessive concentration of TP. However, no empirical evidence is given to support this assertion and no biological comparisons are provided to examine the intra and inter-regional differences in the biotic communities. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.094

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Particular attention was given to characterizing the differences in geology among the regions including the naturally phosphorus rich soils associated with the Bone Valley formation. EPA "would expect from a general ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally occurring, nutrient rich conditions, would be supported" (page 77). This statement suggests that the biological community has adapted to what would in other systems be characterized as excessive concentration of TP. However, no empirical evidence is given to support this assertion and no biological comparisons are provided to examine the intra and inter-regional differences in the biotic communities. 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.027

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. The proposed total phosphorus criteria should be strengthened for the Bone Valley region - Although the Bone Valley region has naturally phosphorus-rich soils (U.S. EPA 2010, e.g. p. 4193), the streams in this region have also sustained major impacts from extensive urbanization, reflected by high P concentrations. According to FDEP (2010a, p.8), "EPA's site selection methodology resulted in the use of data from Bone Valley streams with more anthropogenic nutrient enrichment than the reference streams [selected by FDEP]." At present, because the FDEP analysis used streams with

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3195Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams less anthropogenic nutrient enrichment, FDEP's suggested nutrient criteria for the Bone Valley region should be adopted by U.S. EPA. 

# Comment ID 1646-1.001.003

Author Name: Gardner P. Organization: City of Eagle Lake RESOLUTION NO.: R-10-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EAGLE LAKE EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO ADOPTION BY U.S.E.P.A. OF PROPOSED NUTRIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR CEN1RAL FLORIDA LAKES AND STREAMS. WHEREAS, the U.S.E.P.A. has issued proposed regulations on nutrient loading for Central Florida Lakes and Streams, and one of the nutrients to be regulated is phosphorus; and WHEREAS, most of Polk County is located in the Bone Valley Formation, with naturally occurring levels of phosphorus in the soil; and WHEREAS, the limits of phosphorus in the water as proposed by U.S.E.P.A. are lower than naturally occur in Central Florida; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of Eagle Lake that:
1. The U.S.E.P.A. is requested to reconsider the proposed nutrient limits for phosphorus, taking into consideration the particular geology and weather conditions in Central Florida.
2. The Eagle Lake City Commission further requests that the U.S.E.P.A. consider in its assessment of allowable nutrient levels the currently available technology for storm water treatment. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE EAGLE LAKE CITY COMMISSION on Monday, April 19, 2010. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection A. Comments on the Delineation of Nutrient Watershed Regions DEP supports the development of regional stream criteria for TN and TP, and in fact, originally proposed stream nutrient regions similar to EPA's Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWR). However, DEP has subsequently revised our

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3196Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams proposed stream nutrient regionalization and recommends that EPA adopt these revised regions (Figure 1). Specifically, we recommend that EPA revise the delineation of the Bone Valley NWR to better reflect the region directly influenced by geologic phosphate deposits. EPA's current Bone Valley NWR extends into stream reaches and watersheds outside the influence of the Peace River formation or Bone Valley member and is therefore under-protective of these areas as well as downstream waters. Additionally, we recommend that the Panhandle region be split into two units to better account for natural phosphate sources and spatial patterns. A new western Panhandle region should be added, while the eastern portion of the Panhandle should be merged with the lower Suwannee basin due to similar nutrient characteristics and geologic influences. The resultant recommended regionalization includes: Bone Valley and North Central (two naturally high phosphatic regions dominated by surficial phosphatic geological formations); separate Panhandle East and Peninsula regions with intermediate TP levels influenced by Hawthorne formation outcroppings; and one naturally low nutrient Panhandle West region. There is also a South Florida region with ecological, hydrologic, and biogeochemical characteristics markedly different from the remainder of the state that is addressed separately by EPA. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.010

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection DEP proposed a stream nutrient regionalization framework in our June 2009 draft numeric nutrient criteria technical support document, which included a Bone Valley nutrient region. Since that time, we have continued to collect additional information and have refined the proposed delineation of the region. DEP's revised regionalization captures some, but not all, of the watersheds added by EPA. DEP initially delineated the Bone Valley region by overlaying the geological formation with Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) 8 and 12 drainage basin GIS coverages. Drainage basins that significantly overlap either formation and drainage basins downstream of the formations were included in the region. The Bone Valley region extends from the Peace River drainage to the east and south, and Hillsborough River to the north. The Hillsborough River, excluding its headwaters in HUC 0310020802002, should be included in the Bone Valley. The characteristics of the Hillsborough River headwaters are dominated more by the Green Swamp than by the Peace River Formation. The remainder of the Hillsborough River is highly influenced by streams draining the Peace River Formation, and these segments are most appropriately categorized as part of the Bone Valley region. There are sufficient data and information to support inclusion of the Shell and Prairie Creek watersheds in the Bone Valley region. DEP's June 2009 proposal included the Shell Creek Reservoir (WBID 2041B) in the nutrient region. The Reservoir is an "in-stream" reservoir that is exclusively sustained by all streams included in the Shell and Prairie Creek watersheds, therefore it seems logical that all drainage areas contained in Shell, Prairie, and the Reservoir are most appropriately included in the Bone Valley region. Furthermore, there is evidence that deposits of phosphate rock in the southern regions of the Peace Basin, including Shell and Prairie Creeks, result in elevated TP values of surface waters. A survey conducted by the Florida Geological Survey (FGS) in 1953 (Odum, 1953) showed TP values in Shell Creek at a concentration of 2.1 mg/L, approximately half the concentration detected at the upper Peace Basin sample locations. This study concluded that "percolating rain waters are continually concentrating phosphorus in the layers just beneath the surface as the acid rainwater becomes basic; therefore, streams that cross these formations show a close correlation between the phosphate areas and the phosphorus in the waters". To further assist with the assessment of hydrologic conditions in the Shell Creek watershed, the FGS analyzed available monitoring well data for phosphorus

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3197Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams levels. Surficial well data from the Shell and Prairie Creek watersheds had a median phosphorus value of 0.84 mg/L, with intermediate and Floridian aquifer data showing values below laboratory detection limits. EPA's Bone Valley NWR includes areas on the north side of the Hillsborough River drainage as well as portions of Pinellas County that are clearly outside of the natural phosphatic deposits. DEP opposes the inclusion of much of this area; although we now agree that Hillsborough River WBIDs should be included in the region with the exception of the headwaters in the Green Swamp. There is no scientific information supporting that naturally elevated occurrences of total phosphorus would be expected in northern Hillsborough River tributaries or Pinellas County. Lithologic logs reviewed from 14 SWFWMD well sites monitored by the Regional Observation and Monitor Program (ROMP; http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/projects/romp /) show sparse (generally less than two percent) phosphate content in the surficial sediments (Figure 5). Lithologic logs for ROMP sites (TR 12-3, TR12-1, TR 14-1, TR 13-1, TR 13-3, ROMP 65, ROMP 85, NWRAP N-4D, and Channel A) were reviewed for phosphate content. A total of 14 lithologic logs were reviewed. ROMP 65 has six wells and TR 12-3 has two wells. According to the lithologic logs, the sites either contain 2% or less phosphate content:

• The ROMP TR 12-3 Southern Comfort contains trace or sparse phosphatic sand from 40 feet to 124 feet below land surface (bls) and phosphatic gravel from 104 feet to 112 feet bls from the Tampa Member.

• The ROMP TR 12-3 Benjamin Road contains trace or sparse phosphatic sand from 25 feet to 38.5 feet bls from the Undifferentiated Hawthorn Group.

• The ROMP TR 14-1 Safety Harbor contains 1% phosphatic sand from 40 feet to 55 feet bls from the Tampa Member.

• The ROMP 65 Northlakes FMW-1, ROMP 65 Northlakes FMW-2, and ROMP 65 Northlakes FMW-3 contain 2% phosphatic sand sequences ranging in depth from 30 feet to 92 feet bls from the Tampa Member.

• The ROMP 85 Wesley Chapel contains 2% phosphatic sand from 95 feet to 100 feet bls from the undifferentiated sand and clay unit.

• The ROMP 12-1 Eisenhower Road, TR 13-3 Race Track Road, NWRAP N-4D, Channel A, ROMP 65 Northlakes FMW-4, ROMP 65 Northlakes FMW-5, ROMP 65 Northlakes FMW-6 sites contains no phosphate sequences. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5. Map of SWFWMD ROMP Well Sites showing a summary of lithologic data from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.012

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Existing TP levels in streams within the northwestern portion of EPA's Bone Valley region are substantially lower than the larger region and are more similar and comparable to the Peninsula region (Figure 6). DEP opposes the inclusion of theses watersheds in the Bone Valley nutrient region. We recommend that northwest boundary of the region be defined

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3198Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams based on the current Hillsborough River WBID boundaries. DEP is aware of the fact that representatives of the South West Florida Water Management District are opposed to the use of the term "Bone Valley" for naming this nutrient region. Although DEP believes that "Bone Valley" is descriptive of the dominate geologic feature influencing surface and ground water nutrient levels and acknowledges the fact that the term has historically been applied to describe the region, we would not be opposed to an alternative name such as "West Central Peninsula" or "West Central". Furthermore, we acknowledge that these alternatives are more consistent with naming convention used for other regions. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6. Long-term average geometric mean WBID TP concentrations in the in the west-central Florida peninsula including the Bone Valley region. TP data were retrieved from Run 38 of the IWR database from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.014

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection b) Western Panhandle and Eastern Panhandle Regions EPA's proposed Panhandle region does not fully account for spatial variability related to geology among Panhandle streams. DEP recommends that a separate Panhandle West Region be split from the Panhandle East Region based on the absence of Hawthorn formation outcroppings in the western portion of the state (Figures 1, 2 and 3). We further recommend that the eastern portion of the Panhandle be merged with the lower Suwannee River drainages based on similarity of TP levels and the influence of Hawthorn outcroppings throughout these areas (Figures 1, 2, 3, and 7). Hawthorn formation outcroppings occur in portions of the Panhandle NWR in Madison, Jefferson, Leon, and Gadsden counties. Rivers that drain these areas bring with them phosphorus-bearing sediments and dissolved phosphorus in the water column derived from the Hawthorn Group sources, resulting in high natural TP concentrations. High natural TP levels are present in the streams of the Big Bend subregion all the way to the coastal area, including the region from the Suwannee to Wacissa Rivers. However, the streams west of the Wacissa River exhibit a marked decrease in TP levels south of the Cody Escarpment. This decrease in TP levels is evident from kriging analyses performed using both DEP's benchmark sites and an all streams data distribution (Figure 8). The "all streams" krige is particularly useful in illustrating the spatial pattern because the decreases in TP are evident despite the inclusion of potentially anthropogenically altered sites. It is clear that natural factors reduce the TP concentration in streams south of the Cody Escarpment. The spatial pattern is primarily due to the fact that many streams in this region of the Panhandle do not flow across the Cody Escarpment due to "stream capture" by sinkholes, where upon the water enters the Floridan Aquifer. The streams originating south of the Cody Escarpment tend to begin in swampy flatwoods areas and have minimal watersheds north of the Escarpment. One major exception to this is the Ochlocknee River, which flows through the artificial Lake Talquin reservoir. DEP has previously shown that Lake Talquin assimilates (predominantly via sedimentation) most of the Hawthorn derived TP, resulting in an outflow TP concentration similar to other streams south of the escarpment. Therefore, it is logical to use the Cody Escarpment as the boundary for the stream nutrient regions

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3199Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams from the Apalachicola River to the Wacissa watershed. The southern boundary of stream ecoregion 65h was drawn along the Cody Escarpment, thus DEP used a GIS coverage of this ecoregion to define the boundary between the western and eastern Panhandle. DEP opposes inclusion of the lower Suwannee watershed in the North Central NWR. Total phosphorus concentrations within the lower Suwannee watershed are considerably lower than the main portion of North Central region, as illustrated by the krige of DEP benchmark site TP concentrations (Figure 8). It is clear that the geologically derived phosphorus is being substantially assimilated and diluted as water flows downstream toward the estuary. Much of the dilution is related to the large number of springs and spring dominated streams flowing into the Suwannee River. EPA's NWR does not adequately consider these factors. We recommend that the regionalization be based on the similarity and comparability of streams characteristics (i.e., nutrient levels and geologic formations). Benchmark stream TP concentrations in the lower Suwannee are similar to those of the eastern Panhandle (Figure 8). Stream biological communities in the lower Suwannee (SCI bioregions) are also more similar to those of the eastern Panhandle than those in the Peninsula. Therefore, we recommend that the lower Suwannee and portions of the eastern Panhandle be combined to form a new "Panhandle East" stream nutrient region (see Figure 1). Original comment letter contains additional information for rivers in Figure 7. Stream total phosphorus contour plots based on ordinary kriging analysis of A) benchmark stream sites, and B) all streams concentrations across Florida. The all streams dataset was taken from the U.S. EPAs all streams data file. Report was from the Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.018

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection d) Alternative Classification EPA requested comment on the regional classification decision to sub-divide based on phosphorus-rich soils (geology), as well as an alternative classification approach that would not separate out the phosphorus-rich watersheds. DEP supports the regional classification approach based on phosphorusrich geology for the derivation of TP criteria and would not support the alternative. We believe that this approach best reflects the natural conditions of the Suwannee River watershed and streams in the Bone Valley; however, as noted previously, the areal extent of Bone Valley NWR region needs to be revised. We concur with the statement that from a "general ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally occurring, nutrient rich conditions, would be supported." The measured phosphorus conditions within biologically healthy streams (as measured by the SCI) must be inherently protective of the biology observed in those streams. The regionalization ensures that criteria are derived from a set of streams that possess similar and comparable ecologic, geologic, and climatic conditions, and are therefore assumed to respond to nutrients in a similar and comparable manner.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3200Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1694-1.001.009

Author Name: Buss J. Organization: City of Tallahassee EPA acknowledges the need for classifying Florida's streams by nutrient watershed regions due to differences in natural factors that contribute to nutrient concentrations in streams; therefore, EPA must consider additional ceo-regions in the Panhandle to address clearly documented, broad-based soil and geological characteristics. In Section III.C (2) (a), EPA requested comment on the classification decisions regarding defining regions based on phosphorus rich soils. The City appreciates EPA's acknowledgement that naturally phosphorus rich soils can significantly influence TP concentrations in streams. The City also supports using approaches that consider watershed and geologic regions. In fact, that is primarily why the City is asking EPA to consider further sub-dividing the Panhandle region. The City of Tallahassee and the northern half of Leon County area are comprised of the Tallahassee Hills, or Hawlhorne fonnalion geology, which are predominantly made up of clay soils. A Level III & IV Ecoregions of Florida map produced by EPA clearly depicts Leon County and most of the Florida Panhandle divided into distinctly different soil types (Attachment 2). It has been shown that clay in soils correlates with higher soil TP concentrations and that is related to higher phosphorus concentrations in runoft~ Using the EPA reference stream data, provided by the FDEP, City staff compared Leon and Gadsden County sites (Red Hills Region) to the other remaining Panhandle sites (Table I). We found that the average TP concentration was 0.16 mglL for Leon and Gadsden and 0.034 mglL for the remaining Panhandle sites. This value of 0.16 mglL TP is similar to the 2006 EPA TMDL TP limit (0.15 mglL) for Ochlockonee and St. Marks River Basins, which was developed from seven local reference streams. The TMDL target limit resulted in a 6% reduction for TP compared to a 73% reduction applying the proposed critet10n. The City, as part of the NPDES Wet Weather Land Use Characterization Monitoring from 200 I - 2003, identified a runoff TP concentration of 0.12 mglL from undeveloped land, which exceeds the proposed TP standard. Clearly, regional differences exist within the Panhandle and should be considered before imposing reductions beyond existing natural conditions. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Comparison of Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) Within the Panhandle Region. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.024

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 5. The identification of regional TN criteria, which isolates the high phosphate areas such as the Bone Valley from the Peninsula Region, is not appropriate as the regionalization was associated with soil conditions reflective of phosphorus issues not nitrogen.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3201Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.121

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(2)(a) Methodology for Stream Classification: EPA's Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWRs) Statement: The Agency requests comment on this particular classification decision (regions based on phosphorus-rich soils), as well as an alternate classification approach that would not separate out the phosphorus-rich watersheds described in this notice. The latter approach is similar to the approach proposed by EPA, but would not result in separate NWRs for the Bone Valley and/or North Central. Rather these NWRs would be integrated within the other NWRs. Comment: The goal of the regionalization was to identify areas with significantly different ratios of TN and TP export. The EPA has justified TP NWRs, but does not deal with TN NWRs and simply adopts the same areas. EPA identifies geology, soils composition, and hydrology as factors in NWR delineation, however it seems as if only geology and soils are used. EPA needs to document how they used hydrology. In general, research and data on the influence of hydrology seems to be consistently lacking in the Technical Supporting Documentation (TSD). EPA requests comments on not using the separation out of the phosphorus rich soil regions; however they have identified phosphorus rich soils as a primary influence in nutrient level. Delineating regions based on TN is likely a higher priority than TP; while incorporation of more physical factors is also needed. In general, more NWRs are needed, not fewer. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.156

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Regarding NWR delineations; the identification of regional TN criteria, which isolates the Bone Valley from the Peninsula Region, is not appropriate as the regionalization was associated with soil conditions reflective of Phosphorus issues not nitrogen. The Suwannee River has been shown to have a phosphorous-rich geological formation along with the Alapaha and Sante Fe River drainages. In general, more NWRs are better and can be more tuned to local nutrient conditions. Previous studies (see EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0068) have proposed up to 47 regions. Geology should be included in NWR delineations, although many other facors (e.g. wetlands, hydrology) also need to be included. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5: Example TN map from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596­ 0068 which delineated 47 regions based on water chemistry, hydrology, and physiography. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3202Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.078

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa Instead, the EPA should apply ecological concepts as a framework for establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida streams. Ecological principles such as the river continuum concept that allows for the stream networks to be described by a continuum of biological responses linked by energy flow pathways based on stream order should be used as the basis for establishing numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1770-1.001.040

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City Instead, the EPA should apply ecological concepts as a framework for establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida streams. Ecological principles such as the river continuum concept that allows for the stream networks to be described by a continuum of biological responses linked by energy flow pathways based on stream order should be used as the basis for establishing numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.049

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County Instead, the EPA should apply ecological concepts as a framework for establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida streams. Ecological principles such as the river continuum concept that allows for the stream networks to be described by a continuum of biological responses linked by energy flow pathways based on stream order should be used as the basis for establishing numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.043

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville Instead, the EPA should apply ecological concepts as a framework for establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida streams. Ecological principles such as the river continuum concept that allows for the stream networks to be described by a continuum of biological responses linked by energy flow pathways based on stream order should be used as the basis for establishing numeric nutrient criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3203Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1773-1.001.044

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission Instead, the EPA should apply ecological concepts as a framework for establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida streams. Ecological principles such as the river continuum concept that allows for the stream networks to be described by a continuum of biological responses linked by energy flow pathways based on stream order should be used as the basis for establishing numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.089

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(2)(a) Methodology for Stream Classification: EPA's Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWRs) Statement: The Agency requests comment on this particular classification decision (regions based on phosphorus-rich soils), as well as an alternate classification approach that would not separate out the phosphorus-rich watersheds described in this notice. The latter approach is similar to the approach proposed by EPA, but would not result in separate NWRs for the Bone Valley and/or North Central. Rather these NWRs would be integrated within the other NWRs. Comment: The goal of the regionalization was to identify areas with significantly different ratios of TN and TP export. The EPA has justified TP NWRs, but does not deal with TN NWRs and simply adopts the same areas. EPA identifies geology, soils composition, and hydrology as factors in NWR delineation, however it seems as if only geology and soils are used. EPA needs to document how they used hydrology. In general, research and data on the influence of hydrology seems to be consistently lacking in the Technical Supporting Documentation (TSD). EPA requests comments on not using the separation out of the phosphorus rich soil regions; however they have identified phosphorus rich soils as a primary influence in nutrient level. Delineating regions based on TN is likely a higher priority than TP; while incorporation of more physical factors is also needed. In general, more NWRs are needed, not fewer. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.096

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3204Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Regarding NWR delineations; the identification of regional TN criteria, which isolates the Bone Valley from the Peninsula Region, is not appropriate as the regionalization was associated with soil conditions reflective of Phosphorus issues not nitrogen. The Suwannee River has been shown to have a phosphorous-rich geological formation along with the Alapaha and Sante Fe River drainages. In general, more NWRs are better and can be more tuned to local nutrient conditions. Previous studies (see EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0068) have proposed up to 47 regions. Geology should be included in NWR delineations, although many other factors (e.g. wetlands, hydrology) also need to be included. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5: Example TN map from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596­ 0068 which delineated 47 regions based on water chemistry, hydrology, and physiography. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.150

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 6. The identification of regional TN criteria, which isolates the high phosphate areas such as the Bone Valley from the Peninsula Region, is not appropriate as the regionalization was associated with soil conditions reflective of phosphorus issues not nitrogen. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.161

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Regarding NWR delineations; the identification of regional TN criteria, which isolates the Bone Valley from the Peninsula Region, is not appropriate as the regionalization was associated with soil conditions reflective of Phosphorus issues not nitrogen. Additionally, the Suwannee River has been shown to have a phosphorous-rich geological formation along with the Alapaha and Santa Fe River drainages. In general, more NWRs are better and can be more tuned to local nutrient conditions. Previous studies (see EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0068) have proposed up to 47 regions (see below figure). Geology should be included in NWR delineations, although many other factors (e.g. wetlands, hydrology) also need to be included. Additionally, the abrupt and sometimes significant change in target across regional boundaries (TP Bone valley of 0.739 mg/L versus 0.107 mg/L for the Peninsula Region) do not seem reasonable as it is more likely that a gradual transition would occur and that the differences are a function of data from one specific region being compared to a much larger region with more degree of variability. The values near the border of the Bone Valley reflect overall conditions distant from that point. 

# Comment ID 1784-1.001.024

Author Name: Cunningham T.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3205Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities Phosphorus in Limestone: The Gainesville area is unique in that streams running through exposed limestone contain high concentrations of phosphorus which the stream extracts and carries downstream. 

# Comment ID 1784-1.001.026

Author Name: Cunningham T. Organization: Gainesville Regional Utilities VII. Local Surface Waters Do Not Exhibit Problems With Nutrients: Reducing Total Nitrogen loading to Sweetwater Branch will not improve the existing ecosystem. Sweetwater Branch is not impaired for nutrients. There is no physical evidence of algal blooms or mats. Sweetwater Branch is a rapidly moving stream with a natural canopy that does not express algal blooms or other signs of nutrient impairment. Throughout the extent of the stream it has been modified extensively by human behavior through direct stormwater runoff and channelization. It is also important to analyze specific waterbodies, such as Sweetwater Branch, to determine impacts due to artificially low nutrient concentrations. Phosphorus in Limestone/Hawthorne Group: The Gainesville area is unique in that streams running through exposed limestone and the Hawthorne Group contain high concentrations of phosphorus which the stream extracts and carries downstream. These areas have naturally elevated levels and concentrations of phosphorus that exceed the EPA NNC. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.033

Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior Nutrient Criteria for Lakes, Flowing Waters, and Canals A Proposed Concept Approach Approach: South Florida DOI recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modify their strategy of defining nutrient criteria boundaries to be based on soil chemistry, geology, and hydrogeology for those areas that have adequate supporting data. Background: Nutrient availability is controlled by soil chemistry, geology, and hydrogeology to a very large extent. The draft EPA proposal groups very large areas of the state together regardless of the soil chemistry, geology, or hydrology. The specific example of EPA creating boundaries based on chemistry, geology, and/or hydrology is reflected in the draft proposal for phosphate deposits near Tampa; this area has been identified as its own unit. The areas south of Lake Okeechobee could be classified in the same way. The basins could be divided based on acid peat soils, natural

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3206Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams conditions, carbonate soils, and the interactions with the Aquifer. The watershed and canals encompassed by the drainage area from Snake Creek (C-9 Basin) south to Barnes Sound and west to the L-31N/L30N could be separated out as a Biscayne Bay Basin. This approach would create a Biscayne Bay Basin based on the soil type, geology, and presence of the Biscayne Aquifer, which is a very porous carbonate system. Reorganizing the boundaries based on physiographic units meets the EPA stated goal of using scientifically based units. Using this proposed system, a Greater Everglades Natural Area Basin would include the natural areas of the Central Everglades (the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge; Water Conservation Area (WCA) 2, and WCA 3 combined with Natural Areas in northwestern Palm Beach Counties, Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, Rookery Bay watershed, and other natural areas of the west coast including mainland Monroe County with similar soils) as its own group. Some subdivision within this area may be necessary based on local conditions, however, most of the conditions controlling nutrient availability would be similar. In the same way, the developed areas and farming areas could be their own units based on similar soils geology and use (see Figure 1). The water flowing out of these areas will still be required to meet Everglades Protection Area criteria, and when developed, coastal or estuarine criteria. Although the emphasis of our comments is in the Everglades south of Lake Okeechobee, we recommend that a similar approach could be applied to other areas in Florida, including the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes and the St. Johns Marsh. Benefits and Considerations:
1. This is not a great departure from the concepts expressed in the existing proposal. It is a modification of the existing EPA approach and simply expands the idea EPA used when dividing out the phosphate areas near Tampa.
2. There is not a large workload increase for this analysis. The data sets used to calculate the existing EPA proposal are already compiled. This represents a re-grouping of existing data before statistics are recalculated.
3. Data re-analysis does not require an entirely new process or principle.
4. There is a better technical justification for the criteria resulting from this type of analysis than is represented by the current boundary divisions.
5. The Biscayne Bay Watershed has already been analyzed using this approach; DOI is sharing these results with EPA.
6. The canal water coming from the EAA must meet the Everglades Protection Area standards regardless, and the developed areas in the east will have to meet coastal or estuarine criteria when developed.
7. Natural areas would have their own nutrient criteria approved without being held up by disagreements over controversial areas such as the EAA to the north or the cities to the east. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Proposed Watershed Grouping For Freshwater Nutrient Criteria Based on Soils, Geology, and Land Use from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.026

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3207Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 6. The identification of regional TN criteria, which isolates the high phosphate areas such as the Bone Valley from the Peninsula Region, is not appropriate as the regionalization was associated with soil conditions reflective of phosphorus issues not nitrogen. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.106

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(2)(a) Methodology for Stream Classification: EPA’s Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWRs) Statement: The Agency requests comment on this particular classification decision (regions based on phosphorus-rich soils), as well as an alternate classification approach that would not separate out the phosphorus-rich watersheds described in this notice. The latter approach is similar to the approach proposed by EPA, but would not result in separate NWRs for the Bone Valley and/or North Central. Rather these NWRs would be integrated within the other NWRs. Comment: The goal of the regionalization was to identify areas with significantly different ratios of TN and TP export. The EPA has justified TP NWRs, but does not deal with TN NWRs and simply adopts the same areas. EPA identifies geology, soils composition, and hydrology as factors in NWR delineation, however it seems as if only geology and soils are used. EPA needs to document how they used hydrology. In general, research and data on the influence of hydrology seems to be consistently lacking in the Technical Supporting Documentation (TSD). EPA requests comments on not using the separation out of the phosphorus rich soil regions; however they have identified phosphorus rich soils as a primary influence in nutrient level. Delineating regions based on TN is likely a higher priority than TP; while incorporation of more physical factors is also needed. In general, more NWRs are needed, not fewer. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.113

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Regarding NWR delineations; the identification of regional TN criteria, which isolates the Bone Valley from the Peninsula Region, is not appropriate as the regionalization was associated with soil conditions reflective of Phosphorus issues not nitrogen. The Suwannee River has been shown to have a phosphorous-rich geological formation along with

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3208Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the Alapaha and Sante Fe River drainages. In general, more NWRs are better and can be more tuned to local nutrient conditions. Previous studies (see EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0068) have proposed up to 47 regions. Geology should be included in NWR delineations, although many other factors (e.g. wetlands, hydrology) also need to be included. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5: Example TN map from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596­ 0068 which delineated 47 regions based on water chemistry, hydrology, and physiography.. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.027

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 17 .The USEPA Stream Nutrient Region designated as Bone Valley should be assigned a new name using the geographic conventions employed in the naming of the other nutrient regions (page 4193, proposed rule). Ample justification exists to use USEPA's nomenclature for the "Bone Valley Nutrient Watershed Region," based on the occurrences of phosphatic geologic formations across the region as a whole (Southwest Florida Water Management District 2010) . However, SWFWMD strongly opposes the reference to the "Bone Valley" by USEPA and suggests that this term be replaced by a more appropriate name based on the geographical conventions used for the other designated Nutrient Regions in the State of Florida . SWFWMD suggests the region be renamed to the West-Central Peninsula Region, as previously designated by Kaufman (1969) . When compared to other regions of Florida, this nutrient region was historically determined to have elevated TP concentrations in streams, which was associated with near-surface occurrences of phosphate minerals in geologic formations that are presently assigned to the upper Hawthorn Group sediments (Odum 1953, Kaufman 1969) . 

# Comment ID 1836.001.028

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 18.The group of water bodies designated by USEPA as belonging to the Bone Valley Nutrient Watershed Region should be expanded to include water bodies that originate but flow out of the region and water bodies that receive flow from Bone Valley tributaries (page 4193, proposed rule) . SWFWMD staff reviewed the boundaries of the USEPA Nutrient Watershed Region to assess if there were tributaries flowing out of water bodies contained within the Bone Valley Region that were not included in the region . SWFWMD recommends that USEPA further evaluate tributaries flowing out of the boundaries of the Bone Valley Nutrient Watershed Region . Inclusion of these tributaries in this nutrient watershed region is recommended because the contributing areas delivering water to receiving water bodies will have elevated TP levels . Some examples found during the SWFWMD's review include:

- Portions of the upper Hillsborough River that were not included in the Bone Valley Region had multiple contributing tributaries that originated in the nutrient watershed region .

- Lakes along the WHCL were included in the Bone Valley Region but the tributaries and canals leading out of the lakes

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3209Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams and connecting the lakes together were not contained in the nutrient watershed region . 

# Comment ID 1836.001.029

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 19 . It is strongly recommended that USEPA include Saddle Creek (WBID 1497) as well as the Peace Creek Drainage Canal (WBID 1539) in the Bone Valley Nutrient Watershed Region (page 4193, proposed rule) . Historical land use in the Saddle Creek and Peace Creek Drainage Canal WBIDs included phosphate mining activities . Review of stratigraphic delineations from the Geologic Formations of Florida (Florida Geological Survey; GIS coverage) provides evidence that upper Hawthorn Group sediments occur within both the Saddle Creek and Peace Creek Drainage Canal WBIDs. 

# Comment ID 1885.001.015

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County Sediments

- Sarasota County has phosphorus rich sediments in some locations but not others . Maps from the Geological Survey show the complexity. County staff conducted sampling for total phosphorus to better understand our condition and found a remarkable level of variability. For example our white sand beaches had the lowest concentrations we detected and our dark sand beaches had the highest . We are still evaluating the data. In areas with nitrogen limitation there is insufficient scientific support for establishing phosphorus criteria. Assigning our entire region to the same phosphorus criteria may not be appropriate. 

# Comment ID 1894.001.005

Author Name: Fields G. Organization: City of Lakeland Total phosphorus is of particular concern to the City. As noted, part of the City's treatment system includes ponds that were originally excavated during mining, of the area-the Bone Valley area-for phosphate. Phosphate is part of the environment in and around the City of Lakeland; Polk County is one of the most active phosphate mining regions in the world. Even if the City had the funds, removal of phosphorus from a phosphorus-based background is most likely not technically feasible. And, because the Bone Valley is essentially made of phosphorus, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that phosphorus has a disruptive effect on stream biology since the plants and animals native to the area developed in a phosphorus-rich environment.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3210Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

More importantly, nutrients have not been linked to harmful effects within the North Prong of the Alafia and Tampa Bay is responding favorably to nitrogen reductions brought about by the City of Lakeland and other Nitrogen Management Consortium members. 

# Comment ID 1919-1.001.018

Author Name: Standridge K. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. A. Comments on Methodology for Proposed Streams Classification. 1. Comments on Selection of Four Stream Regions Based on Aggregated Watersheds. Summary of Comments: Earthjustice proposes four phosphorus nutrient regions: a Bone Valley Phosphate Region, a Statenville Phosphate Region, a Panhandle Region, and a Peninsula Region.[44] The boundaries of the phosphate regions should be drawn based on the delineations of the Bone Valley and Peace River Formations in Central Florida and the Statenville Phosphate Region (including potentially all or parts of the Coosawatchie Formation in North Florida) as those formations are depicted on the Geologic Map of Florida (2000). Earthjustice proposes two nitrogen nutrient regions in Florida: a Panhandle Region and a Peninsula Region. [44] Appendix 28A: Nitrogen data points and map with benchmark site locations; Appendix 28B: Phosphorus data points and map with benchmark site locations. 

# Comment ID 1919-1.001.019

Author Name: Standridge K. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. 2. Comments on Alternatives to the North Central Region. Summary of Opinion: Rather than a North Central Region, EPA should define the boundaries of a Statenville Phosphate Region by reference to the location of the Statenville Formation on the Geologic Map of Florida (2002). EPA might also wish to include in the Statenville Phosphate Region all or parts of the Coosawatchie Formation which underlies parts of Union, Alachua, and the upper part of Marion Counties based on the occurrence of high phosphorus levels that have been recorded in that region of the state. 

# Comment ID 1920-1.001.015

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3211Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

40. Establishment of separate numbers for phosphate rich nutrient regions is important because, having evolved over millennia, tolerant species of flora and fauna have adapted to thrive within Florida's phosphorus-rich formations. These high concentrations of naturally occurring phosphorus are limited to particular areas of the state. As a consequence, ecosystems and their unique inhabitants outside such deposits suffer major adverse impacts when subjected to anthropogenically high phosphorus levels. The Everglades, for example, has historically been an oligotrophic environment with extremely low phosphorus levels at around 10 ppb.[19] Decades of inundating this pristine and nutrient-sensitive environment with excessive phosphorus through human disturbance brought about mandatory regulation to preserve its sensitive natural ecology. Currently, native species outside the Everglades and the phosphate regions are unable to adapt quickly to rising phosphorus levels and are subsequently displaced by more tolerant and often nuisance species, changing the fundamental structure of the natural biota. Just as restrictions on the amount of phosphorus were necessary to protect the Everglades, many sensitive Florida ecosystems demand similar action today.

[19] http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004NE/finalprogram/abstract_70778.htm 

# Comment ID 1922.001.002

Author Name: Ayech B. Organization: Environmental Confederation of South West Florida Particular attention must be taken in the Bone Valley Region. This region should not be allowed higher rates of T and P because of current and future phosphate mining. TN and TP contributions from phosphate mining should be determined by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the entire Bone Valley. 

# Comment ID 2018-6.001.014

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa 31. Particular attention was given to characterizing the differences in geology among the regions including the naturally phosphorus rich soils associated with the Bone Valley formation. EPA "would expect from a general ecological standpoint that the associated aquatic life uses, under these naturally occurring, nutrient rich conditions, would be supported". This statement suggests that the biological community has adapted to what would in other systems be characterized as excessive concentration ofTP. However, no empirical evidence is given to support this assertion and no biological comparisons are provided to examine the intra and inter-regional differences in the biotic communities. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0590.001.004, 1087-1.001.012, 1352-1.001.066, 1352-1.001.113, 1352-1.001.183, 1355-2.001.042, 1355-2.001.094, 1646-1.001.003, 1671-3.001.001, 1671-3.001.010, 1671-3.001.012, 1671-3.001.014, 1671-3.001.018, 1694-1.001.009, 1761­

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3212Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams
3.001.024, 1761-3.001.121, 1761-3.001.156, 1769-1.001.078, 1770-1.001.040, 1771-1.001.049, 1772-1.001.043, 1773-1.001.044, 1777-2.001.089, 1777-2.001.096, 1777-2.001.150, 1777-2.001.161, 1784-1.001.024, 1784-1.001.026, 1794-1.001.033, 1805­ 3.001.026, 1805-3.001.106, 1805-3.001.113, 1885.001.015, 1920-1.001.015, 2018-6.001.014 Response: EPA received comments disagreeing with how the Agency decided to classify streams into Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWRs). EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, EPA has decided to split the Panhandle Region into West and East regions and to restrict the size of the West Central (previously Bone Valley) Region. There were several comments related to intraregional classification. The first comment was that the approach for regionalization was too broad, that criteria will not protect the diversity and unique characteristics of waters that vary within regions, and that site-specific studies and criteria would account for more variability. As outlined in the nutrient criteria guidance, EPA recognizes that classification aims to reduce as much natural variability within classes as possible. Such classification efforts must weigh the trade-off between specificity, which would be optimized if each site were considered separately, and resource requirements and data availability, which clearly limit how fine a classification is possible. EPA considered a variety of regionalization schemes and has decided on the regionalization described above and detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA believes the regionalization is protective of Florida streams since EPA considered the full range of variability in its selection of sites and captures that variability in its selection of the SCI thresholds based on inter-site variability among reference sites and in its selection of the upper bound percentiles of the reference population.

A second comment related to stream classification was that 4th order streams are different from 1st order streams in structure and function and in responses to nutrient loads. EPA agrees that size can affect stream processes and EPA considered stream size, but did not find a compelling basis for differentiating criteria based on stream size for the final rule since stronger differences were attributable to interregional classes as detailed in the proposed rule and final rule TSDs. EPA would not rule out regional refinement in the future based on stream size should compelling evidence support such a change. The federal site-specific alternative criteria procedure established in the rule may be used for such changes when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. A third comment is that stream classifications should have been based on concentrations and not N:P ratios. EPA agrees that N:P ratios along should not be the sole basis for classification which is why EPA considered concentrations as well as N:P ratios in its classification and detailed this in the draft rule and final rule TSDs. There were also several comments related to interregional classification elements. Some comments argued that soil and geologic differences were related to P but not N and, therefore, were not appropriate bases for NWR for nitrogen. EPA considered many factors related to classification and considered several classification options. Clearly, there are differences among the regions with respect to geologically reactive P deposits, especially highlighted in differences between the North Central and West Central regions and other regions. EPA revisited the regionalization associated with the geologically reactive Hawthorn Group in response to these and other comments and selected the regionalization described above for both TP and TN, which is described in detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3213Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent. EPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion at this time. However, EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a color-TN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA’s analysis of the stream TN data indicated that the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than non-Panhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. Other comments suggested that geology was an appropriate basis for regionalization, but that biological comparisons should also be used to identify regional differences. EPA’s regionalization began with a framework developed by FDEP that was based on biology. The FDEP effort considered bioregions from their bioassessment programs as one element in their classification framework. Not surprisingly, the final EPA NWR classification is similar to the bio-regionalization developed by FDEP for their SCI tool, with some obvious differences dictated by geological factors. Lastly, EPA received comments that nutrient availability is controlled by soil chemistry, geology, and hydrogeology and that classes should be based on these factors for areas with adequate supporting data. EPA agrees and considered all of these factors, data availability, and appropriate response characteristics in establishing the NWR classes. Soil chemistry reflects underlying geology, which was an element used by EPA in developing the NWRs. Similarly, EPA considered ecoregions which themselves rely heavily on geology, soil type, and hydrology. Importantly, however, EPA also considered trends in observed nutrient distributions to verify and guide classification. It is the behavior of nutrients that manifests the effects of the major classification drivers, so EPA relied on this to help guide final class selection. With regards to comments arguing the application of the River Continuum Concept to nutrient criteria development, it was not stated how the RCC should be applied specifically to developing nutrient criteria nor is EPA aware of any application of that biogeomorphic paradigm to stream criteria development.

Comment IDs: 1304-1.001.032, 1894.001.005 EPA also received comments related to implementation. The first theme within these comments was related to assessment errors and conflicts between biological conditions and impairment decisions which could result from EPA’s criteria. EPA has considered all these and other comments related to this first theme. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3214Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams “pristine” sites. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the Benchmark Approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula regions. This modified Benchmark Approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed land cover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. Because EPA has relied on this more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified in that region. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. In the same vein, EPA received comments arguing that, under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, some reference or pristine waterbodies would be deemed to be impaired. Some of this perception seems to have been the result of analyses by FDEP and others of the number of FDEP reference waterbodies that would not meet the proposed criteria. First, there are likely no pristine waterbodies, defined as that reflecting the original pre-human state, left in Florida. The impacts of centuries of human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere have made the existence of pristine conditions essentially extinct in Florida. Even Florida’s original benchmark site population, presented as pristine, contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor, however, EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered that several of FDEP’s benchmark reference sites were included on the State’s section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various reasons, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairments. The salient point is that any conclusion of the number of “reference” waterbodies that would be deemed impaired depends on a careful and accurate depiction of reference and the conclusions using the population originally presented by FDEP presented issues that were problematic. EPA is using a modified Benchmark Approach for its final criteria that addresses many of these problematic screening issues. That modified approach is described above and in more detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. Also related to this first theme, EPA disagrees with comments that assert impairment of reference sites based on error rate analyses described in the comments. EPA views the type of analysis suggested in the comment as inappropriate and flawed because these analyses proposed calculating error rates using traditional statistical assumptions about attainment and non-attainment. EPA observed that there are no true independent “attaining” or “non-attaining” populations upon which to test the criteria because criteria do not yet exist, therefore these tests are invalid. The concept of false positive and false negative rates is predicated on the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3215Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams assumption that an independent assessment of the attainment and non-attainment is available. For example, to estimate the false positive rate of a diagnostic test, physicians observe whether patients actually contract a disease. In the case of nutrient criteria, the reference distribution is the only means of defining attainment and non-attainment. Hence, any discussion of false positive or false negative rates is not relevant. Further under this first implementation theme, some commenters argued that some streams would meet the criteria yet still display unhealthy biological conditions and that, therefore, implementation of the criteria should require biological validation that waters attaining the criteria are in fact healthy. EPA agrees it is possible that some streams would meet nutrient criteria yet still display unhealthy conditions but disagrees with the reasons why and the implication. There are many stressors that threaten aquatic life. Nutrient criteria are meant to protect against the effect of elevated nutrients on aquatic life. The criteria cannot control for other stressors which may also result in unhealthy conditions. Moreover, it may be that some streams meet the criteria and still contain unhealthy conditions due to nutrients. The approach for criteria derivation used here could potentially result in nutrient impacts below the proposed criteria. EPA has attempted to minimize that risk with the approach used in the final rule based on stringent criteria, biological screens, and higher percentiles but it is not a guarantee that our generally applicable criteria are most appropriate for every individual stream. In a case where the proposed criteria are proven not to protect aquatic life from nutrient effects, then site-specific criteria can be set to provide more protective criteria. 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. Requiring independent validation of biological impairment would, ostensibly, invalidate the need for protective nutrient criterion to protect aquatic life. The last argument under the first implementation theme was that EPA’s proposed approach for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria assumed elevated nutrient levels are responsible for impairment when they may not be and/or that it is impossible to determine if designated uses will be protected. EPA disagrees that it is impossible to determine that elevated concentrations will impair uses or if uses will be protected by setting the final criteria. 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 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 decided to use the reference approach described based on the specific SCI approach in the West Central Region and the modified Benchmark Approach in all other regions, following EPA peer reviewed guidance for deriving criteria. Such an approach concludes that concentrations observed in least disturbed reference populations known to be unimpaired by nutrient impacts would continue to protect designated uses from nutrient impacts. The basis for this is articulated in the EPA nutrient criteria guidance documents. As noted above, the final rule provides flexibility for the any entity to submit SSAC for waterbodies where additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3216Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The second comment theme under implementation relates to the cost of regulation. Commenters argue that local and state governments will spend a lot of money to come up with site-specific criteria within the very broad regions established to set the proposed criteria and that this will squander resources that could be used to correct true impairments. EPA disagrees and believes the resultant criteria will be sufficiently protective across the broad NWRs and the criteria will identify true impairments, obviating the need for site-specific criteria except where necessary. Indeed, EPA expended great effort with the classification element to minimize the need for site-specific criteria. Where local and state government determines a SSAC is necessary to most appropriately address specific waterbodies, the development of those SSAC should cost roughly the same as what it would cost to develop the appropriate limits under the narrative nutrient criteria. The extent of impacts due to nutrient enrichment in Florida and across the nation is substantial. EPA agrees that the efforts to solve this pressing problem will involve an investment of resources. But EPA hopes all parties agree such investments are necessary to protect our vital resources from the pervasive effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution that is clearly evident in Florida and across the country.

Comment IDs: 1032.001.002, 1033.001.001, 1050.001.008, 1174.001.002, 1464-2.001.027 Response: EPA received comments critical of evenness in the derivation of criteria across regions. The first comments suggested that differences in criteria depending across regions were unfair and punished regions that have been doing a good job of protecting their waters. EPA considered these comments and disagrees. For the proposed and final rules, EPA’s regionalization analysis did not consider effort expended to protect waters in determining the NWRs. The regionalization process is meant to reduce natural variability associated with geographic features important in determining instream nutrient concentrations, such as geology, hydrology, and soil types. There are certainly associations between human density, activity and water quality. But these associations do not factor into the regional classifications. Other comments expressed concern that Panhandle criteria were 2-4 times less than natural area concentrations. EPA considered this concern diligently and this is why the agency carefully identified sites for use in the reference condition approach that reflected least-disturbed and biologically healthy conditions. EPA argues that to the extent that samples from truly natural areas are reflected in the reference population, resultant criteria should minimize the risk of identifying these as impaired. In response to this and similar comments, EPA reconsidered classification that parts of the Panhandle appeared to have elevated nutrient concentrations due to natural geological factors. Consequently, the final rule regionalization splits the Panhandle into West and East regions to better reflect the natural differences across that region and reduce the errors expressed in these comments. EPA also received comment that the same standard should be set for the entire State so those with lower criteria don’t have to pay additional costs of treatment. EPA reaffirms that the object of classification was to reduce natural variability associated with geographic features important in determining instream nutrient concentrations, such as geology, hydrology, and soil types. Moreover, under the Clean Water Act, EPA cannot consider economic factors in establishing criteria to protect designated uses, so the effective cost of treatment of polluted water was not considered in deriving the criteria. EPA also received comments about inconsistencies in NWR descriptions and maps. One comment was that the method for assigning streams to regions was not consistent between shapefiles for NWRs and the Appendix B-18 list of estuarine DPV watersheds. EPA notes that DPVs to protect estuaries are no longer being considered under this rule, but will consider these concerns in linking any future estuarine DPV calculations to the NWR stream coverages and will reconcile any disparities at that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3217Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams time. EPA also received comment that there were inconsistencies between text of the report and the TSD -- specifically with regards to the Peninsula and Palm Beach County. EPA delineated NWRs using WBID coverages that adhere to watershed boundaries and these watershed boundaries were the intended boundaries. EPA revisited the southern Peninsula boundaries in response to these and other comments and has attempted to reconcile these issues and to produce unified language across the final rule and final rule TSD documents.

Comment IDs: 1836.001.028, 1836.001.029, 1919-1.001.018, 1919-1.001.019 Response: EPA received a series of comments recommending changes to its proposed regionalizations. The first was that given the absence of biological tools for the Caloosahatchee River, the River should not be placed in the Peninsula NWR. EPA disagrees that there is an absence of developed biological tools or application of biological tools for the Caloosahatchee. FDEP has sampled the Caloosahatchee watershed at more than 20 stations for biological condition. EPA used samples from these sites as part of the derivation of the proposed and final criteria; biological data are adequately available for this river basin. The second set of comments related to recommendations to use 4 P regions and 2 N regions. EPA agrees that there is a basis for reconsidering the regionalization and has considered this and a number of similar comments when revisiting the regions for the final classification effort. This included revisiting both P and N regionalizations. This reanalysis in large part focused on geological formations with P active geologies, as indicated in these comments. For the final rule, EPA has established 5 TP regions, splitting the Panhandle into a Panhandle West and Panhandle East and restricting the proposed size of the West Central to be most consistent with maps of P active geologies and watershed boundaries. The bases for these regions are explained in the final rule TSD. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent.EPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a colorbased TN criterion at this time. However, EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a colorTN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA’s analysis of the stream TN data indicated that the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than non-Panhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. The last comment in this theme relates to including certain WBIDs in the South Florida Regions because canals are the dominant water feature in those WBIDS and therefore they should not be in the Peninsula. EPA disagrees 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3218Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Class I and III waters as designated by the State. There is no 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 the regions. 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 (as Class III), then it is not appropriate for EPA to make a distinction in the numeric translation of the protective narrative criterion. Therefore, all class III waters in the watersheds addressed by this rule will be included in the appropriate geographic NWR.

Comment IDs: 1086.001.001, 1086.001.002, 1086.001.003, 1086.001.004, 1086.001.005, 1086.001.006, 1086.001.007 1836.001.027, 1922.001.002 Response: EPA received many comments related to mining impacts in the Bone Valley and derivation of numeric criteria for that region. These comments disagreed with EPA’s proposed criteria for the Bone Valley Region because historic mining had resulted in high P concentrations. EPA considered the effects of geology on P concentrations which in many areas are coincident with mining activities. By regionalizing streams, EPA has sought to identify natural and unnatural influences on instream P concentrations. Moreover, biologically health conditions and benchmark conditions existed within the landscape of elevated P, obviating the argument presented. EPA considered these lines of evidence along with the data available and concluded that the resultant concentrations will support balanced natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. EPA has reconsidered the regionalization of the Bone Valley (now being called the West Central Region) and its calculation of an appropriate criterion there in response to these and similar comments. For the final rule, EPA has restricted the size of the West Central to that region coincident with the P reactive geology and watershed boundaries and this change altered the applicable nutrient criteria. This is detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. Lastly, some commenters within this theme suggested the Bone Valley name should be replaced by a more appropriate name based on geographical conventions. EPA agrees and, as stated above, is now referring to this region as the West Central.

Comment ID: 1217-2.001.016 EPA received a variety of positive comments that are acknowledged here. Most of these commenters argued that the proposed criteria were scientifically sound because they were based on biologically healthy streams and that this approach was better than least-disturbed based approaches. EPA agrees that the biologically healthy reference approach is scientifically defensible for criteria derivation and used that approach to derive criteria for the West Central NWR. EPA also considers its modification to FDEP’s least-disturbed based approach to be a valid approach for criteria derivation. Others commented that EPA’s nutrient criteria guidance for the approach used does not require proof of a specific stressor-response to establish criteria. EPA agrees. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3219Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams exists and that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement. EPA also agrees with those who commented that criteria are required to restore and protect waters to unimpaired conditions.

References: 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. Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542. Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429. Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643-657. Cross, W.F., J.B. Wallace, A.D. Rosemond, and S.L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565. Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427. Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158. Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477. 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 production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142. Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368. Gaiser, E.E., J.C. Trexler, J.H. Richards, D.L.Childers, D. Lee, A.L. Edwards, L.J. Scinto, K. Jayachandran, G.B. Noe, and R.D. Jones, 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3220Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Lohman, K., J.R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23. Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835. Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117. Notestein, S.K., T.K. Frazer, M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G. S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386. Rosemond, A.D., P.J. Mulholland, and J.W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J.L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289. Slavik, K., B.J. Peterson, L.A. Deegan, W.B. Bowden, A.E. Hershey, J.E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939-954. Stelzer, R.S. and G.A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367. 

# III.C.2.B - USE OF STREAM CONDITION INDEX AS AN INDICATOR OF BIOLOGICALLY HEALTHY CONDITIONS Comment ID 0689.001.002

Author Name: Phillips J. Organization: Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility And as I understand it the stream condition index is probably -- the foundation that's used to identify these reference sites for which nutrient criteria are established. And as such, I think it's imperative that SCI be fundamentally sound,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3221Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams scientifically sound. To that end -- and these are more questions than answers -- but I couldn't tell from looking through the materials on your site, whether this rule development, whether you submitted the SCI and nutrient criteria to the development process that you use in your guidelines. If not, we would advocate that you do submit those to the development process your guidelines that you normally use. And then the second thing is in looking at the two and a half percentile, which I believe equates to roughly a 40 on the SCI scale, does that adequately account for the safety factor that EPA normally uses to establish water quality criteria. Frankly, it looks in reading through all of this it lacks to us as though -- and there are reasons for this, sure -- but it looks like when there's a skewed to absolutely make sure that there's no unimpaired waters -- and it is laudable and the impaired-decision making -- it's laudable, but at the same time the question is has the bar been set too low. And that's what we would appreciate you taking a strong look at. On your sight, you have a bioassessment and criteria group that's identified. And I was wondering if that group was review of the SCI and it's use in the proposed rule. If not, if they did we would like to -- I guess we would like to submit a formal request -- but we would like to obtain a copy of their comments. And if they didn't, we would like to -- for them to review these since they were involved in the development safety implementation by a criteria. And then were there any internal peer reviews conducted? If not, we submit that they should be. And then lastly, I don't want to disparage any of the groups that have been here before, but frankly, this is all too predictable. Somebody who used to work for DEP as an attorney who was involved in the TMDL, frankly -- there is an old commercial that says: This is Florida. The rules are different here -- when talking about tourism. Our TMDL rule was largely developed through industry. It was fought. We contested it. Industry lined up with the DEP, and the issue of chlorophyll A and numeric nutrient criteria was heavily fought. They thought it was too stringent then. And if they had allowed stricter criteria back then in 2001 we may not be here today. 

# Comment ID 0897.001.002

Author Name: Phillips J. Organization: Florida Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility The Stream Condition Index As stated on page 4180 of the Federal Register : 3 . Nutrient Pollution in Florida Water quality degradation resulting from excess nitrogen and phosphorus loadings is a documented and significant environmental issue in Florida. According to Florida's 2008 Integrated Report,\32\ approximately 1,000 miles of rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of lakes, and 900 square miles of estuaries are impaired for nutrients in the State. To put this in context, these values represent approximately 5% of the assessed river and stream miles, 23% of the assessed lake acres, and 24% of the assessed square miles of estuaries that Florida has listed as impaired in the 2008 Integrated Report .\33\ Nutrients are ranked as the fourth major source of impairment for rivers and streams in the State (after dissolved oxygen, mercury in fish, and fecal coliforms). For lakes and estuaries, nutrients are ranked first and second, respectively . As discussed above, impairments due to nutrient pollution result in significant impacts to aquatic life and ecosystem health . Nutrient pollution also represents, as mentioned above, an increased human health risk in terms of contaminated drinking water supplies and private wells.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3222Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams (Footnotes omitted) This statement by EPA underscores the critical nature of adopting a rule that will truly limit the discharge of nutrients into Florida's surface waters.[1] Florida uses a Stream Condition Index (SCI) as the foundation upon which to identify reference sites from which nutrient criteria are established. Simply stated, the allowed nutrient levels in Florida's streams will be too high if the appropriate level for determining whether or not Florida's streams are impaired is not chosen. The standards as proposed largely rely upon the SCI to determine at what score each stream will be considered as impaired. On page 4193 of the Federal Register the EPA stated its approach: EPA considered two lines of evidence in determining the SCI range of scores that would indicate biologically healthysystems. The first line of evidence was an evaluation of SCI scores in streams considered by FDEP to be leastdisturbed streams in Florida. A statistical analysis balanced the probability of a stream being included in this reference set with the probability of a stream not being included in this reference set, and indicated that an SCI score of 40 was an appropriate threshold. SCI scores range from 1 to 100 with higher scores indicating healthier biology. Our first issue is whether or not EPA has subjected the SCI and the development of nutrient criteria to its ownEvaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators, approved May 2000, (http ://www.epagov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/ecoind .html). If it has followed its own guidance in this matter we are requesting the documentation of these reviews. If not, we submit that EPA's guidance should be used in determining the appropriateness of the SCI and nutrient criteria as developed. This evaluation, we submit, should be done internally by EPA, e.g. by the biocriteria program or the Office of Research and Development, not by an outside contractor. Therefore, we would have some level of confidence that the reference sites chosen are truly representative of only minimally disturbed streams with little to no effect from human influence with known natural variability. Our second issue is how EPA arrived at a score of 40 (or a 2.5th percentile) as being determinative of the appropriate threshold below which streams would be considered impaired. Simply stated, our concern is that choosing a 2.5th percentile will improperly exclude waterbodies from being labeled as impaired when, in fact, they are. We can well understand Florida's desire that as few of its waterbodies as possible be labeled with an "impaired" designation, but if the science supports such a determination then the public has the right to know as much. After all, nutrient impairment has been shown to be much more than a mere nuisance. It can lead to serious health issues in the human population. Further, and equally important, is the question of whether the 2.5 th percentile of the selected reference sites adequately account for a safety factor that EPA normally uses to establish water quality criteria. From the documentation we have seen we simply do not know whether safety factors have been used, as would normally be the case when trying to identify the level of purity of any state's waterbodies. Given the level of uncertainty as to the allegedly pristine nature of Florida's reference sites and the designation as such we maintain that a safety factor should be used. If they have not been used we maintain that the rule, as promulgated, inadequately protects Florida's waters and the health of its residents. The Need For Peer Reviews As I mentioned at the public hearing on the 16th, we believe that it is critical that the development of these nutrient standards, including the use of FDEP's SCI be submitted to internal peer review at EPA, if such has not been accomplished to date. Likewise, any external peer reviews that have been conducted should be identified for the public.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3223Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

[1] Actually, we maintain that the figures derived by the FDEP understate the true number of Florida's waters that impaired, particularly given the fact that Florida's Impaired Water Rule, 62-303, F.A.C ., has been challenged because of contentions that it is too restrictive in identifying Florida's impaired waters . See, e. g., Sierra Club et. al. vs. Levitt, 488 F.3d 904 (11th Cir. 2007). 

# Comment ID 1344.001.005

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District When we talk about science and numeric nutrient criteria, I've had the opportunity to participate in that process as a member of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's technical advisory committee for numeric nutrient criteria development over the last six to seven years. Through that time, one thing that we've definitely seen on the TAC is we do not have the same level of information for all the ecosystems across this state. For example, the level of information on ecology of streams and rivers, natural streams and rivers in the peninsula and the panhandle of the state is much greater, far outweighs the amount of information we have on canal ecology in south Florida, for example. The EPA has taken the time over the last 14 years to enhance and evolve their SCI approach to now where they have the benchmark approach for numeric nutrient criteria development. You evaluated it as an alternative in your rule. You, yourself, used the stream condition index in your show of choice in application for streams and rivers. 

# Comment ID 1433-1.001.005

Author Name: McIndoe J. Organization: Alabama Department of Environmental Management EPA's use of the Stream Condition Index (SCI) to define "healthy" streams is also problematic since biological communities respond to a number of hydrologic and environmental factors which are unrelated to nutrient concentrations. The streams that fall below the healthy SCI threshold may do so for any number of reasons unrelated to nutrient concentrations. Conversely, the streams that exceed the healthy SCI threshold may do so in spite of elevated nutrient concentrations. In its analysis of nutrient benchmark sites the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) found no correlation between SCI scores and nutrient concentrations at sites with healthy biological communities. In fact, FDEP noted that at sites supporting healthy, well-balanced populations of flora and fauna, TP concentrations as high as 300 ug/l and TN concentrations as high as approximately 3 mg/l were found and concluded that "TP and TN concentrations at least as high as the 90th percentile were protective of the natural populations of flora and fauna in minimally disturbed streams". 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.051

Author Name: Hecker J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3224Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida The Conservancy would suggest that the Streams Criteria could be strengthened in several ways. First, the SCI sampling frequency for each region should be increased to assess more data points per region, as well as additional studies to more rigorously asses the relationships between SCls, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.053

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection A Florida-specific decision tree might include questions such as:
1. Does the stream receive inputs from a wetland area(s)? 2. Does the stream receive inputs from a spring(s)? 3. Is the stream ephemeral in nature? 4. Are the levels of NO2 and NO3 elevated? 5. Does DO in wetland-influenced and ephemeral streams fluctuate with seasonal shifts in temperature and flow? 6. Is there a significant diel pattern in DO? 7. Is there evidence of human impacts within the watershed? A benchmark site should only be discarded if the decision tree indicates that low DO is due to anthropogenic impacts rather than natural causes. The absence of human disturbance does not necessarily mean an SCI sample will score well The SCI was developed to determine when human disturbance has impacted streams to the point that their benthic invertebrate community should be considered impaired. Since implementing the SCI tool, FDEP has come to recognize that there are a number of natural conditions that can influence the SCI tool performance. A variety of physical-chemical parameters can act as natural stressors (e.g., velocity, conductivity, pH, temperature, DO). FDEP has developed an SCI primer document that discusses how a number of these variables may influence whether a stream should be sampled under the current conditions or whether an FDEP program would want to use the SCI results collected under certain conditions. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.057

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Basing Impairment on SCI Values is an Inappropriate Use of the Index The USEPA used a large database on a "Stream Condition Index" (SCI) and a complicated statistical analysis of the SCI and data on TN and TP concentrations

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3225Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams and TN:TP ratios in Florida streams to develop proposed nutrient criteria for those streams. The SCI is derived from species composition data on stream benthic invertebrates, and this represents a major scientific flaw in the development of the nutrient criteria. The primary basis for benthic invertebrate indices for streams, such as Beck's original index and later indices like the SCI, is the sensitivity (or lack thereof) of various benthic invertebrate species to organic enrichment and related conditions of oxygen (redox) status. Such indices, including Florida's SCI, were not developed to indicate nutrient conditions in streams. Of course, there may be indirect correlations because enrichment of organic matter from wastewater (in the past, the main anthropogenic source of organic matter in streams) because wastewater also entails enrichment by nitrogen and phosphorus. However, there is no cause-effect relationship in such indices;, meaning that high nutrient concentrations in stream water will not necessarily cause shifts in benthic invertebrate community composition leading to unacceptably low values of invertebrate indices such as the SCI. Consequently, there is no valid technical basis for the USEPA to base its nutrient criteria on the SCI. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.058

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District SCI Reference Site Data also Indicate No Relationship to TN and TP Values FDEP data (USEPA 2010 TSD Chapter 2 Figure 2-34 and Figure 2-35) indicate no relationship between SCI and TN or TP across reference streams (streams that had adequate stream habitat to support a diverse macroinvertebrate assemblage and had low development intensity in the watershed). Evidence that the SCI or LVI respond temporally to reduced nutrient levels is lacking. An SCI analysis using data from Reedy Creek demonstrated that marked reductions in nutrient levels in a blackwater stream due to the removal of a point source discharge did not result in enhanced macroinvertebrate populations (Azurea, Inc. 2007). 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.026

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 7. Considerable disagreement seems to exist between FDEP and EPA concerning NNCs. As an example: "Despite the clear, objective advantages of using the BCG [Biological Condition Gradient], EPA requested DEP to revise the SCI impairment threshold to be based on the reference site approach as the primary line of evidence. DEP believes the reference site approach to be less defensible, as EPA now criticizes the reference site selection process and the percentage of reference sites that must "fail, by definition" when establishing the SCI threshold based on a lower percentile distribution." (Reference: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0153) 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.028

Author Name: Merrill M.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3226Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Hillsborough County 9. The inclusion of the BCG and as well as the suggested FDEP tiered aquatic life uses (TALUs) into the reference condition approach would most likely add to the ‘weight-of-evidence' approach preferred by EPA. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.122

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(2)(b) The Use of the Stream Condition Index as an Indicator of Biologically Healthy Conditions Comment: EPA used FDEPs list of least disturbed streams in Florida which included the SCI as well as many other metrics. The FDEP also included many benchmark streams where low DO values occurred. This acknowledges that some streams with significant wetland influences or blackwater characteristics can naturally exhibit low DO values (i.e. less than 5 mg/l) and still exhibit a ‘healthy' SCI. Despite these benefits of the FDEPs protocol, most of the metrics (SCI, periphyton, land disturbance, etc.) exhibit significant variation from year to year and season to season. The identification of healthy streams based on FDEP staff experience seems reliable, however refinement of adequate metrics to objectify this approach is still needed. More longterm data on SCI and other metrics is ultimately needed to reduce this variability. Also, FDEP recommended an SCI cutoff of 35 for "healthy" systems (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596- 0107) while EPA has proposed 40. FDEP's proposed cutoff has more analysis defending its result. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.090

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(2)(b) The Use of the Stream Condition Index as an Indicator of Biologically Healthy Conditions Comment: EPA used FDEPs list of least disturbed streams in Florida which included the SCI as well as many other metrics. The FDEP also included many benchmark streams where low DO values occurred. This acknowledges that some streams with significant wetland influences or blackwater characteristics can naturally exhibit low DO values (i.e. less than 5 mg/l) and still exhibit a ‘healthy' SCI. Despite these benefits of the FDEPs protocol, most of the metrics (SCI, periphyton, land disturbance, etc.) exhibit significant variation from year to year and season to season. The identification of healthy streams based on FDEP staff experience seems reliable, however refinement of adequate metrics to objectify this approach is still needed. More longterm data on SCI and other metrics is ultimately needed to reduce this variability.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3227Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Also, FDEP recommended an SCI cutoff of 35 for "healthy" systems (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107) while EPA has proposed 40. FDEP's proposed cutoff has more analysis defending its result. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.151

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 7. Considerable disagreement seems to exist between FDEP and EPA concerning NNCs. As an example: "Despite the clear, objective advantages of using the BCG [Biological Condition Gradient], EPA requested DEP to revise the SCI impairment threshold to be based on the reference site approach as the primary line of evidence. DEP believes the reference site approach to be less defensible, as EPA now criticizes the reference site selection process and the percentage of reference sites that must "fail, by definition" when establishing the SCI threshold based on a lower percentile distribution." (Reference: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0153) 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.153

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 9. The inclusion of the BCG and as well as the suggested FDEP tiered aquatic life uses (TALUs) into the reference condition approach would most likely add to the ‘weight-of-evidence' approach preferred by EPA. 

# Comment ID 1800-1.001.009

Author Name: Gong S. Organization: CH2M HILL Stream Condition Index As noted above, the FDEP has invested extensively toward development of science-based metrics for evaluation of lake and stream biological community health. The Stream Condition Index (SCI) is central to use of biological criteria for characterizing aquatic community conditions in flowing water bodies, and we believe that such methods hold great promise for future application in instream evaluations of attainment of designated uses of such waters either with or without compliance with the proposed NNC instream protection values. That said, we concur with the discussions at the April 7, 2010, TAC meeting that addressed potential misuse of such biological criteria without concurrent confirmation of availability of appropriate habitat conditions to support the aquatic organisms targeted for inclusion in SCI calculations. We would encourage mandatory linkage of habitat and aquatic community characterizations either in the rule making activities underway or tied directly to guidance/protocols for demonstration of compliance with instream NNC.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3228Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1805-3.001.027

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 7. Considerable disagreement seems to exist between FDEP and EPA concerning NNCs. As an example: "Despite the clear, objective advantages of using the BCG [Biological Condition Gradient], EPA requested DEP to revise the SCI impairment threshold to be based on the reference site approach as the primary line of evidence. DEP believes the reference site approach to be less defensible, as EPA now criticizes the reference site selection process and the percentage of reference sites that must "fail, by definition" when establishing the SCI threshold based on a lower percentile distribution." (Reference: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0153) 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.029

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 9. The inclusion of the BCG and as well as the suggested FDEP tiered aquatic life uses (TALUs) into the reference condition approach would most likely add to the ‘weight-of evidence' approach preferred by EPA. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.107

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(2)(b) The Use of the Stream Condition Index as an Indicator of Biologically Healthy Conditions Comment: EPA used FDEPs list of least disturbed streams in Florida which included the SCI as well as many other metrics. The FDEP also included many benchmark streams where low DO values occurred. This acknowledges that some streams with significant wetland influences or blackwater characteristics can naturally exhibit low DO values (i.e. less than 5 mg/l) and still exhibit a ‘healthy' SCI. Despite these benefits of the FDEPs protocol, most of the metrics (SCI, periphyton, land disturbance, etc.) exhibit significant variation from year to year and season to season. The identification of healthy streams based on FDEP staff experience seems reliable, however refinement of adequate metrics to objectify this approach is still needed. More long-term data on SCI and other metrics is ultimately needed to reduce this variability. Also, FDEP recommended an SCI cutoff of 35 for "healthy" systems (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596¬0107) while EPA has proposed 40. FDEP's proposed cutoff has more analysis defending its result.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3229Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.037

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services EPA used a large database on a SCI and a complicated statistical analysis of the SCI and data on TN and TP concentration and TN:TP ratios in Florida streams to develop proposed nutrient criteria for Florida streams. The SCI is derived from species composition data on stream benthic invertebrates, and this represents a major scientific flaw in the development of the nutrient criteria. The primary basis for benthic invertebrate indices for streams, such as Beck's original index and later indices like the SCI, is the sensitivity (or lack thereof) of various benthic invertebrate species to organic enrichment and related conditions of oxygen (redox) status. Such indices, including Florida's SCI, were not developed to indicate nutrient conditions in streams. There may be indirect correlations because of enrichment of organic matter from wastewater (in the past, the main anthropogenic source of organic matter in streams) because wastewater also includes enrichment by nitrogen and phosphorus. However, there is no cause-effect relationship in such indices; i.e., high nutrient concentrations in stream water per se will not cause shifts in benthic invertebrate community composition leading to unacceptable low values of invertebrate indices such as the SCI. consequently, there is no valid technical basis for the EPA to base its nutrient criteria on the SCI. Evidence is lacking that the SCI or Lake Vegetation Index (LVI) respond temporally to reduced nutrient levels. A more detailed analysis, using a stepwise discriminate analysis, was used to determine which physical and chemical parameters (as provided in EPA's proposed rule database) were correlated to the SCI. [x] The results of the analysis showed that no nutrient species were statistically significant in documented variations in the SCI. The three most important explanatory variables were conductivity, habitat assessment score and bank stability score. All but two of the remaining explanatory variables were parameters that define habitat conditions (water velocity, substrate diversity, substrate variability, riparian buffer zone width, riparian zone vegetation quality, and artificial channelization score). Dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH were the only two parameters not related to habitat. EPA has previously acknowledged that controlling phosphorus is expected to result in improved DO only to the extent that low DO was the result of phosphorus pollution. xi. EPA has failed to provide any evidence that the proposed nutrient criteria would improve DO or pH levels. Two other independent studies support the conclusion that physical habitat controls biological responses. In the late 1970s and 1980s, Reedy Creek supported a healthy, balanced macroinvertebrate community at TP level far in excess (~250 - 300 ug/L) of the proposed TP criterion for streams in the Peninsula Bioregion (107 ug/L). No improvement inSCI macroinvertebrate community metrics has been observed in the 16 years since the diversion of the advancedtreated wastewater effluent from Reedy Creek, despite a marked reduction in ambient TP concentrations (decline from ~250 - 300 ug/L t0 ~100 ug/L TP). xii Clear differences in macroinvertebrate community metrics were observed between sites of contrasting habitat quality in the Reedy Creek watershed: sites with high quality habitat exhibited the most "desirable" macroinvertebrate assemblages, whereas poorer habitats supported less desirable assemblages. These finding are supported by FDEP data: macroinvertebrate communities in sites with high habitat quality (FDEP reference streams throughout Florida) showed diverse balanced communities across a wide range of nutrient concentrations. xiii. The above factors demonstrate:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3230Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 1)�Habitat is a master factor in controlling macroinvertebrate communities, while TP (in the range investigated at Reedy Creek and at FDEP reference locations) exhibits no effect. 2)�Importantly, the long-term Reedy Creek data also demonstrates that marked reductions in TP to levels below the proposed criterion will yield no beneficial effect to macroinvertebrates.


# Comment ID 1921.001.006

Author Name: Monroe M. Organization: Fellsmere Farms Significant to the study is the use of the FDEP's "Florida Stream Condition Index" (FSCI). According to the FDEP the FSCI established reference conditions in various sub-ecoregions and relied on "best professional judgment". (Bioassessment, the Human Disturbance Gradient, and Applicability to Environmental Decisions : Russ Frydenborg and Tom Frick, Environmental Assessment Section FDEP Bureau of Laboratories) At the very least the accuracy of the data must be tested before any sweeping criteria are implemented. Who is to say that some of the water bodies do or do not have naturally high or low concentrations of Chlorophyll, Phosphorous and Nitrogen . As mentioned above the EPA data set alone was evaluated in as little as 6 months. Criteria must be developed to determine which sites are impaired by humans vs. those that are not . Until there is a specific baseline for each lake, stream and estuary we do not know what the impacts of an improper numeric criterion can have on our Florida Water bodies. 

# Comment ID 1921.001.009

Author Name: Monroe M. Organization: Fellsmere Farms

- Ground truthing of the "Florida Stream Condition Index" ("best professional judgment" should have appropriate peer evaluation before it is the foundation for such a sweeping criteria) 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.074

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Specific Comments on Streams and Rivers Criteria Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(2) Instream Numeric Criteria The USEPA used a database based on a "Stream Condition Index" (SCI) and a statistical analysis of the SCI and data

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3231Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams on TN and TP concentrations and TN:TP ratios in Florida streams to develop proposed nutrient criteria for Florida streams. The SCI is based on species composition data on stream benthic invertebrates, and this represents a major scientific flaw in the development of the nutrient criteria. The primary basis for benthic invertebrate indices for streams, such as Beck's original index and later indices like the SCI, is the sensitivity or lack of sensitivity of various benthic invertebrate species to organic enrichment and related conditions of oxygen status. Such indices, including Florida's SCI, were not developed to indicate nutrient conditions in streams. Of course, there may be indirect correlations because enrichment of organic matter from wastewater (in the past, the main anthropogenic source of organic matter in streams) also entails enrichment by nitrogen and phosphorus. However, there is no cause-effect relationship in such indices, and high nutrient concentrations in stream water per se will not cause shifts in benthic invertebrate community composition, leading to unacceptably low values of invertebrate indices such as the SCI. Consequently, there is no valid technical basis for the USEPA to base its nutrient criteria on the SCI. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0689.001.002, 0897.001.002, 1344.001.005, 1433-1.001.005, 1482-1.001.051, 1671-3.001.053, 1715-3.001.057, 1715-3.001.058, 1761-3.001.026, 1761-3.001.028, 1761-3.001.122, 1777-2.001.090, 1777-2.001.151, 1777-2.001.153, 1805­ 3.001.029, 1805-3.001.107, 1834-4.001.037, 1921.001.006, 1921.001.009. 2233-1.001.074 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the Stream Condition Index (SCI) reference site selection method was arbitrary and simplistic. EPA has considered this and other comments. EPA notes that the reference set of streams used to derive the final criteria in the rule are different than the set of streams used to derive the proposed criteria, except in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). Other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference set of streams, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream set because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. As to the SCI reference site selection method, simplicity in and of itself is not generally an argument against a reference site selection method. The development of the SCI, used as the principal screening tool for the “biologically healthy” reference population, was not a simple process. The SCI incorporates a multitude of information in it, including rules for selecting least disturbed reference sites that were used to develop, score, and identify nutrient thresholds. Moreover, EPA disagrees that the method of selecting reference sites based on an SCI screen was arbitrary. EPA detailed in the TSD the lengthy, involved, scientifically defensible, and transparent process used to generate the multimetric index; a process that is based on well established EPA guidance and scientific principles. The bioassessment and bioindicator literature underlying the SCI is both broad and comprehensive. Similarly, the selection of an SCI threshold of 40 was not arbitrary, but rather based on two rigorous statistical analyses detailed in the TSD. EPA considered a variety of potential SCI endpoints, as detailed in the TSD, and concluded that a value of 40 was most defensible. EPA wanted to develop a reference selection process that was both defensible and clear. The process EPA proposed depended on easily replicable bioassessment results that are clear to identify and easy to use in selecting sites. The SCI also clearly responds to stressors, including nutrient stressors, as detailed in the TSD and citations therein. Other comments opposed the use of the SCI alone for site selection, arguing that natural conditions can influence the SCI tool performance including physical-chemical parameters such as velocity, conductivity, pH, temp, and DO which can act as natural stressors. Natural variability does influence SCI scores, as reflected in the variability around minimally impacted reference sites

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3232Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams SCI scores. EPA considered the influence of this natural variability explicitly in the selection of the SCI threshold and this consideration is described in great detail in the TSD appendices B-13 and B-14. There is also a great deal of information about human disturbance incorporated into the SCI score. For example, the development of the SCI included responsiveness to human disturbance gradients, including the Land Disturbance Index (LDI), in the selection, scoring, and threshold selection processes. So, the SCI scores inherently include considerations of human disturbance, and the selection of the threshold incorporates considerations of least-disturbed conditions. Lastly, the SCI was not used alone for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites. Other comments disagreed with the use of low dissolved oxygen as a basis to reject candidate reference sites because low oxygen may be a natural occurrence. EPA considered this and other comments. EPA retained the removal of sites listed by FDEP as impaired for dissolved oxygen for both the modified benchmark and SCI reference populations as detailed in the final rule and TSD. EPA rejected sites because of low dissolved oxygen where those sites had been included by FDEP on Florida’s list of impaired waters, pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA. FDEP is not required to include waterbodies on the section 303(d) list where it demonstrates that concentrations of dissolved oxygen were measured below the numeric criteria due solely to natural conditions. Without such a demonstration, EPA must rely on FDEP’s identification of impairment when considering whether to select candidate reference sites. Concerns related to FDEP’s section 303(d) list should be addressed through the 303(d) listing process, which is independent of the nutrient criteria development process. Similarly, any comments about the appropriateness of Florida’s dissolved oxygen criteria should be addressed in FDEP’s criterion development process and not the nutrient criteria process. Some comments objected to the rejection of WBIDs listed as impaired for mercury or coliforms. EPA did not exclude WBIDs that were listed as impaired for any constituent other than dissolved oxygen and nutrients. This is detailed in the draft and final rule and TSD. Lastly, with regards to reference site selection, some comments sought clarification on the SCI reference approach. EPA provided a lengthy and clear description of the straightforward process used for selecting the SCI Population reference sites, which included a detailed description of the development of the SCI itself, in section 2 of the proposed rule TSD. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3233Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams approach to derive numeric criteria for Florida streams as described in previously published and peer-reviewed national nutrient criteria guidance. A number of comments disagreed with the sufficiency of data used by EPA. EPA considered these and other comments. The first assertion was that EPA used limited data. EPA considered all available data of defensible quality. For both the proposed and final rule for streams, this included screening and evaluating water chemistry data from more than 11,000 samples from over 6,000 sites statewide, and evaluating biological data of more than 2,000 samples from over 1,100 streams. A review of these data is included in the TSD and data files were also made available to the public. A second assertion was that data were collected during a fewclimatically abnormal years. It is unclear what is meant by climatically abnormal as Florida is typified by highly variable interannual climatic conditions (see figure below with annual precipitation data). Biological data were collected from 2004 to 2008, a period which, according to precipitation data from the Florida Climate Center, included years with annual average precipitationabove the 75th percentile of long-term average annual precipitation, years with annual averages below the 25th percentile of longterm average annual precipitation, and years with annual averages equal to the long-term average annual precipitation. Chemistry data were collected during an even longer period encompassing a similarly balanced number of variable climatic conditions. EPA concludes from this that the data used to derive numeric nutrient criteria incorporate the full range of hydrologic conditions representative of the variability typically observed in Florida including high, low and average conditions and that the range of conditions represented by the data actually reinforces the defensibility of the resultant criteria. There were comments that weighting or averaging was needed when using data from multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. In response to this and similar comments, EPA considered the autocorrelation issues involved in using site averages for sites located closely in space and explored the use of WBID averages. For the final rule, EPA has decided to use WBID averages instead of site averages, which reduces the effect of spatial autocorrelation. The reanalysis and justification are detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. The supplemental notice included analyses of WBID based spatial units. Lastly, EPA received comment that the data used were of varied detection limits and methodologies and included unqualified data. All the data used were verified by FDEPs approved Data Useability requirements as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA received several comments that disagreed with the criteria determination process using the reference condition approach. EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s Benchmark Reference Approach, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream approach because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. The first comment within this general topic was that use of the upper bound of the distribution for “healthy” streams compromises the criteria. EPA considered several options for percentiles and incorporated the concern reflected in this comment into its consideration of which percentiles to use in the final rule. For the final rule, other than the West Central Region, EPA is using the 90th percentile of the modified Benchmark Approach WBID averages within each region because of EPA’s confidence in the screening of that reference population. In the West Central, EPA is using the 75th percentile of SCI approach WBID averages because of reduced confidence in the quality of sites within that population and the reduced sample size. The details of this decision and analysis are included in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA concluded that a reference population typified by either healthy biological conditions or least-disturbed conditions provides EPA with the confidence that these are least-disturbed sites and that the use of upper bound percentiles from this population to establish the criteria was acceptable. A second related comment was that no analysis had been provided to support the 75th percentile as an accurate statistic for defining the distribution of reference sites and that its selection was a policy and not technical decision. As stated above, in response to this and similar comments, EPA revisited the percentile selection process and decided on the percentiles

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3234Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams indicated above. EPA defends the selection of an upper percentile of biologically healthy and least disturbed populations of values as technically defensible for protecting streams. Again, EPA provided a detailed argument of why that is so, related to the fact that the nutrient dynamics of such sites are, implicitly, consistent with that found in sites supporting designated uses. EPA also affirms that the 75th percentile is indeed a statistical characteristic of a population distribution. EPA agrees that the final decision to use a specific percentile does include the exercise of judgment, but that judgment is not arbitrary but rather is based on a consideration of risk to uses based on the degree to which the basis population represents conditions expected to support uses and a consideration of errors in making use attainment decisions based on the resultant values. This judgment is informed by technical information as well. Lastly, some comments asked why a 90th percentile was not used, as suggested by FDEP. Again, EPA has finalized streams criteria for most regions using the 90th percentile when there are sufficient data available to provide EPA with enough confidence that the reference site population is least-disturbed, and closely reflective of minimally impacted conditions. In the West Central Region, where fewer reference sites are available, EPA has continued to set the criteria at the 75th percentile because there is less confidence that these sites reflect least-disturbed conditions. In the absence of a clear, un-confounded stressor-response relationship, EPA elected to use a reference condition approach to develop protective numeric criteria. For the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as noted above for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified benchmark population of reference sites. In the proposed and final rule TSDs, EPA describes its rigorous review process, including peer review, of the nutrient criteria derivation approach, including the SCI element of that approach. FDEP also subjected the SCI to external expert review, as detailed in the proposed rule TSD.

Comment IDs: 1800-1.001.009, 1805-3.001.027 Response: EPA also received comments related to implementation. The first theme within these comments was related to assessment errors and conflicts between biological conditions and impairment decisions which could result from EPA’s criteria. EPA has considered all these and other comments related to this first theme. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine”

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3235Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the Benchmark Approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula regions. This modified Benchmark Approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed landcover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. Because EPA has relied on this more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified in that region. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. In the same vein, EPA received comments arguing that, under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, some reference or pristine waterbodies would be deemed to be impaired. Some of this perception seems to have been the result of analyses by FDEP and others of the number of FDEP reference waterbodies that would not meet the proposed criteria. First, there are likely no pristine waterbodies, defined as that reflecting the original pre-human state, left in Florida. The impacts of centuries of human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere have made the existence of pristine conditions essentially extinct in Florida. Even Florida’s original benchmark site population, presented as pristine, contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor, however, EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered that several of FDEP’s benchmark reference sites were included on the State’s section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various reasons, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairments. The salient point is that any conclusion of the number of “reference” waterbodies that would be deemed impaired depends on a careful and accurate depiction of reference and the conclusions using the population originally presented by FDEP presented issues that were problematic. EPA is using a modified Benchmark Approach for its final criteria that addresses many of these problematic screening issues. That modified approach is described above and in more detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. Also related to this first theme, EPA disagrees with comments that assert impairment of reference sites based on error rate analyses described in the comments. EPA views the type of analysis suggested in the comment as inappropriate and flawed because these analyses proposed calculating error rates using traditional statistical assumptions about attainment and non-attainment. EPA observed that there are no true independent “attaining” or “non-attaining” populations upon which to test the criteria because

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3236Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams criteria do not yet exist, therefore these tests are invalid. The concept of false positive and false negative rates is predicated on the assumption that an independent assessment of the attainment and non-attainment is available. For example, to estimate the false positive rate of a diagnostic test, physicians observe whether patients actually contract a disease. In the case of nutrient criteria, the reference distribution is the only means of defining attainment and non-attainment. Hence, any discussion of false positive or false negative rates is not relevant. Further under this first implementation theme, some commenters argued that some streams would meet the criteria yet still display unhealthy biological conditions and that, therefore, implementation of the criteria should require biological validation that waters attaining the criteria are in fact healthy. EPA agrees it is possible that some streams would meet nutrient criteria yet still display unhealthy conditions but disagrees with the reasons why and the implication. There are many stressors that threaten aquatic life. Nutrient criteria are meant to protect against the effect of elevated nutrients on aquatic life. The criteria cannot control for other stressors which may also result in unhealthy conditions. Moreover, it may be that some streams meet the criteria and still contain unhealthy conditions due to nutrients. The approach for criteria derivation used here could potentially result in nutrient impacts below the proposed criteria. EPA has attempted to minimize that risk with the approach used in the final rule based on stringent criteria, biological screens, and higher percentiles but it is not a guarantee that our generally applicable criteria are most appropriate for every individual stream. In a case where the proposed criteria are proven not to protect aquatic life from nutrient effects, then site-specific criteria can be set to provide more protective criteria. 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. Requiring independent validation of biological impairment would, ostensibly, invalidate the need for protective nutrient criterion to protect aquatic life. The last argument under the first implementation theme was that EPA’s proposed approach for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria assumed elevated nutrient levels are responsible for impairment when they may not be and/or that it is impossible to determine if designated uses will be protected. EPA disagrees that it is impossible to determine that elevated concentrations will impair uses or if uses will be protected by setting the final criteria. 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 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 decided to use the reference approach described based on the specific SCI approach in the West Central Region and the modified Benchmark Approach in all other regions, following EPA peer reviewed guidance for deriving criteria. Such an approach concludes that concentrations observed in least disturbed reference populations known to be unimpaired by nutrient impacts would continue to protect designated uses from nutrient impacts. The basis for this is articulated in the EPA nutrient criteria guidance documents. As noted above, the final rule provides flexibility for the any entity to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3237Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams submit SSAC for waterbodies where additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The second comment theme under implementation relates to the cost of regulation. Commenters argue that local and state governments will spend a lot of money to come up with site-specific criteria within the very broad regions established to set the proposed criteria and that this will squander resources that could be used to correct true impairments. EPA disagrees and believes the resultant criteria will be sufficiently protective across the broad NWRs and the criteria will identify true impairments, obviating the need for site-specific criteria except where necessary. Indeed, EPA expended great effort with the classification element to minimize the need for site-specific criteria. Where local and state government determines a SSAC is necessary to most appropriately address specific waterbodies, the development of those SSAC should cost roughly the same as what it would cost to develop the appropriate limits under the narrative nutrient criteria. The extent of impacts due to nutrient enrichment in Florida and across the nation is substantial. EPA agrees that the efforts to solve this pressing problem will involve an investment of resources. But EPA hopes all parties agree such investments are necessary to protect our vital resources from the pervasive effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution that is clearly evident in Florida and across the country.

References: 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. Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542. Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429. Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643-657. Cross, W.F., J.B. Wallace, A.D. Rosemond, and S.L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565. Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427. Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158. Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the fresh waters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3238Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

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 production in fresh water, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142. Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368. Gaiser, E.E., J.C. Trexler, J.H. Richards, D.L.Childers, D. Lee, A.L. Edwards, L.J. Scinto, K. Jayachandran, G.B. Noe, and R.D. Jones, 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723. Lohman, K., J.R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23. Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835. Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117. Notestein, S.K., T.K. Frazer, M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G.S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386. Rosemond, A.D., P.J. Mulholland, and J.W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J.L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289. Slavik, K., B.J. Peterson, L.A. Deegan, W.B. Bowden, A.E. Hershey, J.E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939-954. Stelzer, R.S. and G.A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3239Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367. 

# III.C.2.C - METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING INSTREAM PROTECTION VALUES: THE NUTRIENT WATERSHED REGION DISTRIBUTION APPROACH Comment ID 0588.001.003

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County EPA's Application of "Reference Approach" for stream criteria is not appropriate

- EPA did not fully acknowledge basic limitation of "reference approach", that there is no link between criteria and impairment (no "dose-response" relationship)

- Should require biological validation before listing as impaired and should provide clear SSAC process

- EPA's regionalization for Bone Valley is too large, and criteria are not adequately protective for some areas in the Tampa Bay area

- EPA's selection criteria for reference waters focus solely on whether aquatic life use in the stream is attained. The Department's more stringent selection process, which excluded sites with potential anthropogenic sources of nutrients, provided additional assurance that the criteria are inherently protective of downstream waters



# Comment ID 0627.001.003

Author Name: Stephens N. Organization: Manufacturers Association of Florida, the Florida Minerals and Chemistry Counsel, and the Florida Poultry Federation EPA has failed to meet basic standards for justification of this proposed criteria for streams. In fact, EPA acknowledges that there's no scientifically supportable stressor response relationship that would numeric nutrient criteria. The effect to proposing criteria without that justification is to invert the burden of proof for criteria. Any entity proposing site-specific criterias, for example, will be required to demonstrate the absence of adverse responses as it's proposed values when EPA and DEP before has shown the utility of such analysis. 

# Comment ID 0649.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3240Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Borkowski W. Organization: CF Industries Good afternoon. My name is Winston Borkowski with the law firm of Hopping, Green & Sams, and I'm here today on behalf of CF Industries. And I want to focus primarily on the streams portion of the rule. Now EPA's regulations mandate that the numeric criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and scientifically defensible methods. For Florida streams, EPA has conceded in the rule that it was unable to establish a sufficient dose relationship linking nutrient concentrations to identifiable biological response variables. We do not see a relationship between paraphyte and biomass, the SCI Chlorophyl a. That was the same conclusion that the good folks of DEP here in Florida came to after ten years of research and 20 million dollars in expenses. To quote an EPA filed document in some of the recent litigation, DEP was on the brink of getting there when it came to streams and they, indeed, were going forward with the process when the consent decree was signed and the paradigm changed. The fact that EPA was forced to rely upon a reference water approach is really an admission that at this point in time we don't have the science to establish statewide numeric criteria for flowing waters; the science is just not there. Logic dictates that if DEP, nor EPA could link a relationship between nutrient concentrations and response variables, one cannot simply flip the variables and then look at the SCI, as a response variable, and back calculate into the nutrient concentrations. It just does not make sense; it is not supportable. 

# Comment ID 0653.001.003

Author Name: Blancher II E. Organization: Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration LLC on behalf of CF Industries The State has made many efforts and extensive efforts for many years, based on the best scientific approaches and comprehensive nutrient stressor data sets and has concluded for some systems, i.e. streams, that stressor response relationships either do not work or are not quantifiable and only explain less than ten percent of the variance within the State's database. But EPA ignores the scientific evidence that no simple relationship that -- that no simple relationship exists between nutrients in response to many Florida systems, especially streams. In regards to streams, the failure of simple empirical modeling to describe stressor response relationships is well known and expected. EPA's own nutrient guidance recognizes this and admits that more complex models are necessary to describe the phenomena. Yet EPA ignores the scientific evidence and still continues to try and force fit a simple empirical relationship to explain complex ecological processes. EPA has prepared more complex mechanistic models such as EPA's Aquatox Model for Florida systems, and it would be especially beneficial for EPA to share those results to see how that methodology performed, especially in regard to stream response to nutrients. 

# Comment ID 0654.001.002

Author Name: Durbin D. Organization:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3241Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Primarily, I see that there is no reliable linkage shown between the nutrient concentrations and any biological response in streams with the possible exception of some of the nitrate criteria as it applies to spring boils and spring runs. As a TAC member, I watched for years as DEP struggled with a mountain of data to try to come up with a connection, a relationship between nutrient levels and a biological response. I've even worked with my own staff with an entirely different database that we've collected through the years to try to come up with a response that links the two, and it's not there. The EPA guidance documents and the EPA staff representation in the TAC process always emphasized the need for a causal variable and a response variable, each of which was to have established nutrient criteria or numeric criteria. EPA didn't follow its own recommendations. And, in fact, I think the very telling statement in the preamble document is, quote, there are currently no available approaches to interpret these data to infer scientifically supported thresholds for these nutrient specific response variables in Florida streams. And it would seem like that a followingcomment would be; therefore, we're unable to do it, but we know that's not what happened. The derivation of the instream protection values that are based on nutrient regimes that are from streams that exceeded a particular biological index value doesn't mean anything unless there's a relationship between that biological index and the nutrient levels. Without those relationships, it's impossible for the proposed in-stream protection values to be equated with the protection of designated uses. 

# Comment ID 0665.001.003

Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League I won't spend time now to elaborate on the reasons for that, but there are reasons unique in our area because DEP did not propose a basis for either reference site dose response or any other method for deriving criteria in our area. So we are starting from scratch with a very short period of time. 

# Comment ID 0698.001.004

Author Name: Provenzano S. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLCThe proposed rule uses a reference stream approach that essentially acknowledges there is no demonstratable causeand-effect relationship between any certain level of nutrients and any specific biological impact to the receiving stream. 

# Comment ID 0721.001.003

Author Name: Johns F. Organization: Lykes Brothers, Inc. Regarding the regulatory inefficiencies, EPA referenced condition analysis is too broad and requires the regulation of pristine water bodies that have already been individually and scientifically proven to be nonimpaired by the Florida

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3242Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Department of Environmental Protection. Under the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria, 80 percent of FDEP's reference or pristine water bodies exceed EPA's numeric nutrient criteria and would be deemed impaired by the proposed criteria. These reference sites have been determined to be pristine through rigorous scientific evaluation conducted by the FDEP through stressor response analysis and based on the biology of the individual water body. Though the stressor response analysis for water bodies is somewhat tedious and costly on the front end, it is by far the most thorough and scientific and efficient in the long run. This type of analysis offers results that directly relate to the designated use of the water body and lend themselves to long-term sustainability of water quality standards in Florida's waters. By using a reference condition approach, EPA will impose regulations on many water bodies that will have no effect on the biology of the water body. This action would be grossly inefficient by wasting Florida's increasingly scarce financial resources to regulate water bodies that do not need to be regulated. 

# Comment ID 0723.001.006

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida Nutrient criteria standards not based on biological responses to nutrients, for example, some of the streams that have shown to be healthy biologically show to be impaired according to the EPA standard. There's not that definite correlation between biological health and the numeric nutrient criteria that is proposed. 

# Comment ID 0734.001.002

Author Name: Young K. Organization: Tampa Electric Company That being said, I'm not here to speak for or against the numeric nutrient criteria rule, but I am here to speak about three very specific issues that I feel and Tampa Electric feels need to be addressed. The first is EPA's reference stream approach. It's arbitrary. 

# Comment ID 0734.001.005

Author Name: Young K. Organization: Tampa Electric Company Tampa Electric believes that any numeric nutrient criteria must address impairment and relationship between nutrient dose and biological response. EPA's referenced water approach does not and cannot address this cause and effect.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3243Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0739.001.002

Author Name: Robbins K. Organization: Entrix We at ENTRIX appreciate the time and effort invested by EPA in developing these criteria, but based on our professional experience and our extensive review of the proposed rule and the technical support documents, we have some serious concerns. First, and, again, many people have already brought this up, there's no demonstrated relationship between nutrient concentrations in streams and biological response. EPA guidance documents have always emphasized the need for both causal and response variables in developing numeric nutrient criteria. EPA did not follow its own recommendations, stating there are currently no available approaches to interpret these data that are scientifically supported thresholds for these nutrient-specific response variables in Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 0739.001.003

Author Name: Robbins K. Organization: Entrix Instead, they used a reference-room approach, using the 75th percentile of normal distribution. Our concern is, if EPA has shown no causal relationship between the biological response and nutrient levels, then how can stakeholders and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection be expected to show that the nutrient values in streams are not affecting the biological condition during an SSAC process? 

# Comment ID 0740.001.003

Author Name: Lee C. Organization: Audubon of Florida We believe that the adoption of these standards is crucial. At the same time, we do have some questions. We have some thoughts that looking at the numbers, particularly as we are familiar with them, with regard to phosphorous in the Bone Valley area and in the North Central area, the numbers which range to 739 parts per billion, frankly, from the basis of our experience, which ranges both the sort of instream sampling that took place in the Everglades that was followed by dose response evaluation, both of which directed us to the 10-part-per-billion standard in the Everglades. I believe if you did dose response on characteristic organisms, you would probably find adverse responses with 739 parts per billion. At the same time in the same streams, while I realize there is a phosphorous substrate that accounts for the rationale behind elevating the phosphorous number, I'm not sure why those same streams show nitrogen numbers at the level of 1,798 parts per billion. So I would urge some attention at looking at those numbers.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3244Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0771.001.002

Author Name: Hammond D. Organization: Entrix I appreciate the substantial effort invested by EPA and I understand the difficulty in researching and developing the proposed criteria. I believe that a scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria can and should be developed for Florida; however, after careful review of the proposed rule and technical support documents, I have significant concerns about the methodologies employed in the defensibility of the proposed criteria. First, EPA's technical guidance manual recommends a need for both causal and response variables for criteria development. However, EPA and DEP admittedly cannot find significant correlations between the biological response indicators of Chlorophyll a, purafil biomass or SCI and the TN and TP concentrations. The proposed rule states the agency cannot confidently predict a specific biological response such as an SCI score for an individual stream solely -­ from the Associated Stream Measurements of the TN nor TP concentration. If there is no link between the SCI score and the nutrient concentrations, then there is no scientifically defensible justification for choosing only sites with healthy SCI scores to represent acceptable nutrient conditions. Deriving the IPVs without a relationship to a biological response variable cannot and will not be protective of instream biological integrity or of designated uses. 

# Comment ID 0771.001.003

Author Name: Hammond D. Organization: Entrix Second, EPA's dataset for the criteria development consisted of nutrient values collected at the same time as the SCI sampling, the grab sample, the long-term geometric mean, which is called the site average, or the annual geometric mean, the site year average. Because the EPA only use nutrient data collected at the same time as the SCI using DEP's IWR database, some sites have very limited or no long-term data at all. For instance, in the Bone Valley, 19 of the 22 stations had only one year of data used in the analysis which means that the grab sample average was essentially the same as the site average was the same as the site year average for those sites. In addition, only one of the 22 sites had more than two years of data. Therefore, for the Bone Valley, the dataset used to set the IPV values was not very robust. The more appropriate method would be to recalculate the IPVs using expanded datasets that include long-term data from stations near where the SCI was calculated or within the same limit as the SCI calculation. 

# Comment ID 0784.001.003

Author Name: Morrell B. Organization: Florida Engineering Society

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3245Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams When it comes to rivers and streams, and I think previous speakers have already spoken very eloquently about it, but, generally, our impression is that the science is very weak and we hardly would call it a science. It's a lot of association of numbers, but with little and no cause and effect of relationship, and that's not good science. And just looking at the results of it, comparing and developing numbers based on reference streams, which is supposed to be our best streams, and then taking the top -- you know, lopping off the top 25 percent, I think it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to think that by the time we're all said and done, we could end up having impaired bodies of water -­ impaired streams that represent maybe more than 50, maybe 80 or 90 percent of our streams and rivers in the State of Florida. And in your preamble you mentioned, you know, trying to get our attention that about a thousand miles of our rivers and streams have already been declared impaired. And that's out of 50,000 miles. Now, that's two percent. I mean, imagine the amount of impaired bodies that we would have if we're talking about 50 to 80 percent impaired surfaces -- surface water, rivers and streams in Florida. And if that's the case, I think you could imagine the economic impact of dealing with all that impaired water. I think it would be a lot greater than the estimates that I've seen so far. 

# Comment ID 0796.001.003

Author Name: Albergo N. Organization: HSA Engineers and Scientists More specifically, the agency's application of a reference approach for stream criteria is rife with technical black holes. Use of large echo region mapping doesn't properly address the high degree of variability that characterizes most watersheds in Florida. There appears to be no link between the proposed criteria and impairment. Shouldn't a stream receive some measure of biological validation before listing it as impaired. It appears that the model presumes all Florida estuaries are impaired, and existing data confirms that this is not the case. Does it make sense that 35 percent of Florida's most pristine surface waters would fail EPA's instream criteria as proposed. 

# Comment ID 0906-1.001.001

Author Name: Lackemacher P. Organization: Bay County Utility Services Bay County has three (3) distinct areas of concern with EPA's proposed NNC rule: Scientific basis is questionable. Funding source to implement required up grade to treatment process. Insufficient time to properly implement up grades. Scientific Basis: EPA's proposed criteria 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3246Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida streams. EPA was not able to demonstrate a sufficiently strong correlation between the biological response indicators and TN or TP concentrations. It should also be pointed out that the "available data", in several instances, is extremely limited in quantity and is therefore less than desirer able for this type of scientific speculation. 

# Comment ID 0914.001.001

Author Name: Lackemacher P. Organization: Bay County Utility Services Bay County has three (3) distinct areas of concern with EPA's proposed NNC rule:

* Scientific basis is questionable.

* Funding source to implement required up grade to treatment process.

* Insufficient time to properly implement up grades. Scientific Basis: EPA's proposed criteria 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. EPA was not able to demonstrate a sufficiently strong correlation between the biological response indicators and TN or TP concentrations. It should also be pointed out that the "available data", in several instances, is extremely limited in quantity and is therefore less than desirer able for this type of scientific speculation. 

# Comment ID 0915-1.001.008

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. 6. The approach used by EPA (basing limits on nutrients measured in healthy streams) penalizes northwest Florida, including NVOC, because of the excellent condition of our streams. 

# Comment ID 0915-1.001.009

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. 7. The proposed nutrient limits are not based on biological assessment of the stream or on biological responses and therefore has no demonstrated relationship to nutrient levels that actually cause nutrient impairment of the stream. NVOC has 10 years' data on the biological condition of the stream between the parcels of our sprayfield which demonstrates the biological virility of the stream.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3247Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 0922-1.001.032

Author Name: Fred Lee G. Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates Original comment letter contains additional information in three references that contain G. Fred Lee & Associates comments on US EPA's approach for nutrient criteria. See original comment letter. The statistical manipulations at the foundation of the various iterations of the US EPA's approach for nutrient criteria have typically disregarded the need for a foundation in cause-andeffect relationships. An example is the US EPA's recent attempt to develop nutrient criteria for streams based on spurious correlations. We commented on the fundamental technical flaws of mechanically using statistics to provide the illusion of a meaningful "relationship" between total phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations and the impact of those chemicals on a stream's ecosystem. The NAS NRC review of that approach also concluded it is not valid for developing nutrient criteria. Our comments on these issues are provided in: Lee, G. F., and Jones-Lee, A., "Comments on ‘US EPA "Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation" Prepared by US EPA, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Science Advisory Board Review, Draft August 17, 2009'," Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, September 4 (2009). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/EPA_Empirical_CritDevel.pdf Hall, J., "Request for Peer Review of New EPA Region III Approach to Developing Instream Standards for Nutrients," Letter with attachments to Stephen Johnson, Administrator, US EPA, Washington, DC, Submitted by Hall & Associates, Washington, DC, August 21 (2008). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/Hall_Cond_Prob_Eval.pdf Lee, G. F., and Jones-Lee, A., "Comments on US EPA's Conditional Probability Approach for Developing Phosphorus Nutrient Criteria," Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, September 26 (2008). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/PCriterionCondProb.pdf 

# Comment ID 0974.001.004

Author Name: Kollias L. Organization: Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 4 . Page 4194 states, "As an alternative to the stressor response approach, EPA analyzed the TN and TP concentrations associated with a healthy biological condition in streams and examined the statistical distributions of these data in order to identify an appropriate threshold for providing protection of aquatic life designated uses." Given multiple stressors in aquatic systems, it is problematic to assume that achieving low nutrient concentrations that are present in streams with healthy biological communities will translate into improved aquatic communities in degraded water bodies .

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3248Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1009.001.007

Author Name: * * Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners Item III .C(2)(c) - Methodology for Calculating Instream Protection Values: The Nutrient Watershed Region Distribution Method: EPA states on page 80, as did the state of Florida in their independent analysis, "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 in Florida streams. More specifically, EPA was not able to demonstrate a sufficient strong correlation between the biological response indicators ... and TN or TP concentrations." It should be noted that that Florida has approximately one third of all nutrient data in STORET, indicating that if such a relationship were going to be identified, it would most likely happen using Florida data. The relationships were not determined according to EPA which means that control of nutrient content in streams does not control biological response - the very target EPA stated it was seeking in these numeric nutrient criteria. How is it possible, then, to believe that control of nutrient content in streams by use of reference stream nutrients is going to control biological response? 

# Comment ID 1009.001.008

Author Name: * * Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners Item III.C(2)(c) - Methodology for Calculating Instream Protection Values: The Nutrient Watershed Region Distribution Method: EPA states that, instead of using reference streams which have little or no anthropogenic impacts, biologically healthy streams (i.e., SCI > 40) were used for determination of the thresholds. Even though the use of reference streams may be invalid (see previous comment), identification of reference streams by biological health is better than by least disturbed streams (LDI < 2) . 

# Comment ID 1012.001.008

Author Name: Grigsby W. Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association 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, the Environmental Protection Agency's "Reference Condition" Analysis is too broad and requires the regulation of "reference" water bodies that have already been scientifically proven to be unimpaired. 

# Comment ID 1012.001.010

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3249Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Grigsby W. Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association Though the Stressor-Response Analysis for water bodies is somewhat tedious and costly on the front-end, it is by far the most thorough, scientific, and efficient in the long-run. This type of analysis offers results that directly relate to the designated use of the water body and lend themselves to the long-term sustainability of Water Quality Standards and Florida's waters. By using a "Reference Condition Approach", Environmental Protection Agency will impose regulations on many water bodies that will have no effect on the biology of the water body. 

# Comment ID 1128.001.008

Author Name: Blancher II E. Organization: Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration LLC on behalf of CF Industries We state again that the stream -- of the in-stream protective values of the streams are inappropriate and not based on sound science. The State has demonstrated that there is not a statistical relationship between the S.C.I. and nutrients, and we have independently confirmed that assertion, nutrients do not significantly contribute to the biological variation in F.D.E.P.'s stream data set. 

# Comment ID 1137.001.003

Author Name: Richards J. Organization: Pasco County Regarding streams, the use of a reference approach for the determination of numeric nutrient criteria for streams does not seem to recognize the cause-and-effect relationship found in Florida streams between biological health and nutrient concentrations. Florida streams typically do not show significant response to elevated nutrients; rather, the more significant response parameters in Florida would be D.O., algal growth, and parafitant growth, which are more responsive to hydrology and local substrate. Also, E.P.A.'s stream criteria do not recognize or account for the existence of certain types of streams in Florida, specifically black water and wetland-dominated systems, two of which in Pasco County would be Cypress Creek and Trout Creek.
E.P.A. in its development of reference stations eliminates sites that were listed for impairment for D.O. tied to nutrients and stations that were listed for nutrient impairment, even if they showed healthy biology. And this is not appropriate and could potentially skew the nutrient criteria. Many of these streams, such as the ones I

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3250Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams mentioned, naturally have low D.O. and high nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1197.001.004

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida The proposed streams criteria were created based on scientifically sound rationale, using the total nitrogen and total phosphorus measurements as well as stream condition indices from healthy streams and rivers.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3251Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1217-2.001.006

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 2. The Rule's proposal for in-stream protective values ("IPVs") is unnecessarily restrictive, disregards water body specific conditions and relies on statistical methods that are not based on actual cause-and-effect relationships between nutrient levels and the biological condition of streams. In some instances, the proposed criteria are more restrictive than the nutrient levels found in pristine waterbodies or in waterbodies that have not been impacted by human activity. 

# Comment ID 1217-2.001.048

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Notwithstanding these elements, EPA's watershed approach falls far short of fully recognizing and appropriately addressing the diverse and unique circumstances of individual Florida waterways that affect actual stream biology. The most significant failure of EPA's IPVs is that they are not based on a documented biological relationship between a stressor variable, such as the concentration of nitrogen or phosphorus in a waterway, and a response variable, such as the presence of chlorophyll a in a stream or the overall ecological health of the stream as expressed, for example, in the Stream Condition Index ("SCI"). EPA concedes that such a relationship cannot be documented with sufficient confidence to provide a basis for setting water quality criteria. See 75 Fed. Reg. at 4,194 ("EPA was not able to demonstrate a sufficiently strong correlation between the biological response indicators (e.g., chlorophyll a, periphyton biomass, or SCI) and TN or TP concentrations. Thus, the Agency could not confidently predict a specific biological response (such as an SCI score) for an individual stream solely from the associated stream measurements of TN or TP concentrations.") Put differently, EPA has no firm scientific evidence that SCI scores or any other indicator of streambiology are a function of particular nutrient concentrations. EPA, in essence, admits that it has no evidence of a causeand-effect relationship between nutrient levels and biological impacts at any specific level of nutrients. As a result, it cannot be disputed that the Agency's IPVs are arbitrary numbers that might hit the "target" or might miss it wildly. EPA also acknowledges the numerous local environmental conditions that affect the relationship between nutrient levels and adverse biological impacts in any given water body, such as the velocity of the stream flow, the shade cover of the stream, and the degree of scouring of stream substrate. Id. at 4,192. Yet, the Agency proceeds to set uniform regional criteria that apply regardless of these critical, varying factors. EPA candidly states that it has done so in order to avoid "the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site-by-site, segment-by-segment basis." Id. EPA does not articulate a single other reason for, or benefit from, rejecting a waterbody-by- waterbody approach and opting instead for a regional approach. This is akin to a doctor arbitrarily recommending a heart transplant to all patients complaining of chest pains because investigating the possible causes of the chest pains for each individual would take too long. Because EPA was unable to establish a stressor-response relationship, it derives its proposed IPVs from statistical

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3252Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams analyses. EPA compiled data from those streams it characterizes as biologically healthy, defined as streams with SCI scores of greater than 40, and examined the levels of TN and TP in these streams. EPA omitted from its list of "reference streams" those streams EPA lists as impaired for nutrients and dissolved oxygen under 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d).


# Comment ID 1217-2.001.050

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC The misguidedness of EPA's IPV approach is demonstrated by widespread evidence that streams with nutrient concentrations above the IPV nevertheless are biologically healthy. For instance, Water Body Identification number ("WBID") 1583 (Poley Creek) in the Bone Valley ecoregion would not meet the TP IPV under the Rule; however, two SCIs conducted in 2004 and 2008 indicate that the stream is biologically healthy (i.e., has an SCI score of greater than 40).[20] Similarly, WBID 2001 (Hog Bay), would not meet the TN IPV, yet had two SCI scores in 2007 and 2008 that indicate healthy biology. The South Prong of the Alafia River (WBID 1653) indicates the same pattern, with five SCI scores between October 2005 and December 2008 at multiple locations indicating healthy biological conditions, even though its nutrient concentrations would exceed the TP IPV.[21] Just as problematic are streams which would meet the proposed criteria yet display unhealthy biological conditions. For example, WBID 1937 (Philippi Creek) has shown unhealthy biology in all three SCIs conducted between 2005 and 2006, yet nutrient concentrations indicate no exceedances of the proposed standard. WBID 1807A (Manatee River) shows unhealthy biology in all three SCIs conducted between June 2005 and November 2007, yet meets the proposed TN and TP IPV criteria. Wares Creek (WBID 1848C) meets the proposed TN and TP IPV criteria, yet neither of the two SCIs conducted in May of 2005 or January of 2006 indicated healthy biological stream conditions.[22] The foregoing and numerous other data demonstrate (i) the absence of a link between the proposed nutrient criteria and the biological health of a stream and (ii) the consequent inability of EPA (or FDEP) to establish a dose-response relationship between the two variables. EPA has not been able to show that meeting the proposed IPV nutrient criteria would either achieve an ecological stream benefit (in the form of increased SCI scores or any other viable metric of stream biology), or can be relied upon to result in the attainment of any designated use. Even more striking is historical data reflecting "natural" conditions versus "impacted" conditions. Environmental Research and Design, Inc. ("ERD") in 2009 prepared a report on runoff characteristics of natural vegetative communities for the FDEP to help support the development of a proposed Florida Statewide Stormwater Rule.[23] Sampling was performed in small streams draining areas of various types of "natural" vegetation cover within 10 State parks, under the assumption that these public preservation areas represent the least degree of anthropogenic nutrient loadings available for study. (Two of the sampling locations, Myakka River and Paynes Creek, are located in the Bone Valley.) The ERD investigation revealed that mean TN values for stormwater runoff from native xeric hammock and dry prairie sites in the Bone Valley exceeded the proposed EPA IPV for the region. Maximum TN values exceeded the EPA Bone Valley IPV value for runoff from all habitats other than marl and wet prairie. Mean TP values for runoff from xeric hammock and upland mixed sites are nearly three times the EPA IPV for the Bone Valley. Maximum TP values also exceeded the Bone Valley IPV for runoff from mixed hardwood, mesic flatwoods, and upland hardwood habitats.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3253Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams (Please see Attachment 2 for a more detailed analysis of the ERD data.) Additionally, looking for historical studies of nutrient loads and biological conditions, Mosaic analyzed data gathered in 1978 and 1979 as part of baseline environmental monitoring of Mosaic's Pine Level Tract.[24] This data was gathered from monitoring stations reporting flows from areas of native habitat and from improved pasture and managed agricultural lands. The results show that the sub-basins draining native habitat would not meet the proposed IPV for TN, while the sub-basins draining agricultural lands would have met the IPV for TN. (The full data set and its analysis are provided in Attachment 3.) Tellingly, the nutrient levels from undisturbed (i.e., natural background) watersheds would have exceeded EPA's IPVs. The ERD study and the Pine Level Tract data show that the contribution of runoff from some natural vegetative communities could cause stream nutrient concentrations to exceed the proposed TN or TP IPV criteria in most ecoregions. These studies strongly suggest that even prior to impacts from man-made sources of activities, Florida stream nutrient concentrations may have naturally been higher than the proposed EPA criteria. Setting nutrient criteria below those levels existing prior to anthropogenic impacts is inappropriate and constitutes an attempt to abate natural conditions, which is inconsistent with Florida law.[25] Moreover, EPA may lack the statutory authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate non-anthropogenic sources of water pollution.[26] In any event, Mosaic believes that the criteria proposed by EPA are unduly stringent to the extent that they, in effect, declare Florida's natural waters to be impaired. The question addressed below is how can EPA best fix these proposed standards.

[20] Mosaic does not necessarily agree that SCI scores are a valid measure of the impacts of nutrients on stream ecology. However, SCI scores are the relevant measure that EPA has used in this Rule to measure stream health for purposes of setting nutrient criteria. Thus, these streams are healthy based on EPA's denomination of SCIs as its measuring stick. [21] All SCI data was obtained from the FDEP website (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/federal.htm) link to the data. Link to data used in EPA's Inland Technical Support Document (Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596­ DRAFT-0288). All nutrient data was obtained from FDEP IWR Run 35 or the FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria Preliminary Assessment of Florida's Fresh Waters (also available on the FDEP website above). [22] Id. [23] Environmental Research and Design, Inc. 2009. Runoff Characteristics of Natural Vegetation Communities in Florida. Draft Final Report prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection under Contract SO108. [24] Mosaic considers this dataset particularly useful and credible for several reasons: (1) the data was collected by an EPA-approved contractor as part of an Environmental Impact Statement baseline monitoring program; (2) the data is available on the STORET data base; (3) the data includes detailed land use and land cover maps; and (4) the scientists and technicians who managed and conducted the monitoring continue to consult for Mosaic today. [25] See Fla. Stat. § 403.0211(11) ("The Department shall not consider deviations from water quality standards to be violations when the discharger can demonstrate that the deviations would occur in the absence of any human-induced discharges or alterations to the water body."); Fla. Admin. Code r. 62-302.300(15) ("[T]he Department shall not strive to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3254Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams abate natural conditions.") [26] See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Leavitt,488 F.3d 904, 920-921 (11th Cir. 2007) (rejecting challenge to EPA delisting of water bodies that did not meet water quality standards for dissolved oxygen levels due to natural conditions.) 

# Comment ID 1217-2.001.053

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Solution: Healthy Stream "Off-Ramp" Mosaic also recommends, in light of the absence of a demonstrated cause and effect relationship between the level of nutrients and any specific biological response, that the IPVs should not apply to any stream affirmatively demonstrated to be biologically healthy, according to the indicia of biological health used by EPA in the Rule. Similarly, the criteria of the Rule should not be applied to any source or discharge, if during the relevant period that any discharge exceeded (or caused an exceedance of) the IPV, the receiving stream is affirmatively shown to have remained biologically healthy. While Mosaic questions the validity of SCI as the singular basis for concluding that a stream has excessive nutrients or is biologically unhealthy (see the discussion on pages 21-24), for internal consistency EPA should not require reductions in nutrient concentrations or discharges to protect streams that are healthy by EPA's chosen metric. Accordingly, EPA should specify in the final Rule that IPVs do not apply to any stream or stream segment with an SCI of greater than 40, or to any discharge into such a stream. Mosaic understands and respects that EPA and the State take seriously the need to ensure that already healthy waters do not become impaired or unhealthy. Accordingly, any exclusion from this Rule for healthy waterbodies must include an explicit allowance for the State to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that there is no increase in concentrations of TN or TP to such excluded waters. To accomplish this refinement, EPA should revise the Rule to add an exception to applicability under paragraph (d) as follows: 131.43(d)(3). The criteria in paragraph (c)(2)(i) do not apply: (i) to any stream where the State demonstrates, or has concluded upon petition or application, that the stream maintains a Stream Condition Index of 40 or greater. (ii) to any source or discharger where the State or the discharger demonstrate that the stream receiving the discharge or impact from such source maintains a Stream Condition Index of 40 or greater. (iii) Nothing in this paragraph limits the authority of the State to prevent the waterbody from becoming impaired or unhealthy from increases in TN or TP discharged into or present in any stream above the levels existing as of the effective date of this Rule.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3255Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1224.001.006

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division With regard to the streams proposal, we followed D.E.P.'s extensive efforts in looking at minimally-disturbed systems and the impacts of nutrients on these systems. And as you know, the conclusion was that stream water quality is complex and dependent on many variables.The bottom line was that there was significant variability in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in these minimallydisturbed streams, but there was no response in the stream biology. So if the connection between nutrients and biology cannot be established, E.P.A.'s proposal for streams could also shift our focus from water quality improvement programs and projects to spending public funding to assure our leadershipand the public that we are striving towards appropriate goals to protect all aspects of our aquatic resources in a fiscallyresponsible manner. 

# Comment ID 1235.001.004

Author Name: Hammond D. Organization: Entrix Second, E.P.A. and D.E.P. have conceded they have been unable to identify a statistically-significant relationship between S.C.I. and nutrients with which to develop stream criteria. However, the S.C.I. is still used to develop a statistical description approach during which only limited data has been included. E.P.A.'s data set for stream criteria development consisted of nutrient values collected at the time of the S.C.I. sampling, called the grab sample, the long-term geometric mean, the site average, and the annual geometric means, the site year average. Because E.P.A. only included nutrient data collected at the same site as the S.C.I., some sites have very limited or no long-term data. For instance, in the state-wide site average data set used to derive the I.P.V.s, 71 percent of the sites had only one year of data and only 11 percent of the sites had more than two years of data. This indicates a majority of the data is only the grab sample taken with the S.C.I. This is partially because the data was not evaluated spacially, and some data were not included in the analysis simply because station names differed, even though the data was collected at the same location. The lack of a long-term data used to develop the criteria makes it inappropriate to implement the criteria as a long-term average of annual geometric means or as a one out of three year acceptable excedence of annual geometric means. While I do not fully support E.P.A.'s use of the S.C.I. in calculating the I.P.V.s, a more appropriate method to improve

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3256Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the criteria would be to recalculate the I.P.V.s using expanded data sets that include long-term data from the stations near the S.C.I. sample or even those within the same WBID. 

# Comment ID 1261-1.001.010

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Item III.C(2)(c) - Methodology for Calculating Instream Protection Values: The Nutrient Watershed Region Distribution Method: EPA states on page 80, as did the State of Florida in their independent analysis, "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 in Florida streams. More specifically, EPA was not able to demonstrate a sufficient strong correlation between the biological response indicators ... and TN or TP concentrations." It should be noted that Florida has approximately one third of all nutrient data in STORET, indicating that if such a relationship were going to be identified, it would most likely happen using Florida data. The relationships were not determined according to EPA which means that control of nutrient content in streams does not control biological response - the very target EPA stated it was seeking in these numeric nutrient criteria. How is it possible, then, to believe that control of nutrient content in streams by use of reference stream nutrients is going to control biological response? 

# Comment ID 1261-1.001.011

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Item III.C(2)(c) - Methodology for Calculating Instream Protection Values: The Nutrient Watershed Region Distribution Method: EPA states that, instead of using reference streams which have little or no anthropogenic impacts, biologically healthy streams (i.e., SCI > 40) were used for determination of the thresholds. Even though the use of reference streams may be invalid (see previous comment), identification of reference streams by biological health is better than by least disturbed streams (LDI < 2). 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.006

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Section 4 provides an analysis of TN and TP as potential causative variables in algal-related stream responses. The FDEP data clearly show that at the TN and TP levels seen in Florida waters there is no predictable relationship between TN/TP and algal quantities or any other nutrient-related response variable considered. Thus it is not reasonable to conclude cause-effect or to presume that control of TN or TP will lead to a predictable stream response. In fact, the analyses done for flowing waters by EPA/FDEP (and additional analyses by NCASI using both FDEP data and data

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3257Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams from NCASI's Long-Term Receiving Water Study) show that other factors are more important to algal response than TN and TP. These other factors include stream shading, stream color, and dissolved inorganic forms of nutrients. Overall the analyses show that there is no reason to think that the proposed criteria represent important environmental thresholds for TN or TP. Lacking a demonstrated cause-effect relationship there is no justification for pursuing TN/TP criteria using the reference waterbody approach. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.010

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Section 8 discusses studies published in the peer-reviewed literature concerning reasons that some flowing waters have naturally low levels of dissolved oxygen (i.e., less than 5 mg/L of DO). The literature suggests several potential causes of naturally low DO in streams. The information will be of interest to EPA because low DO was used as rejection criteria for certain benchmark waters, and some of those waters may have naturally low DO and thus have characteristics of benchmark waters. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.016

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Neither EPA nor the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) conducted a thorough analysis of bioavailable nutrient forms present in most flowing Florida waters (clear streams excepted) and the direct effects of excessive amounts of these nutrients, such as to elevate chlorophyll a concentrations. Such an analysis is an important part of determining a cause-effect relationship between nutrients and a response variable. Without strong evidence of such a relationship, the value of numeric nutrient criteria as an element of predictive water quality management is severely compromised. Ambient waters and discharges to them can contain refractory nitrogen and phosphorus forms that are either not bioavailable or degrade too slowly to contribute to nutrient-related impairments. Consideration of the degree to which refractory nitrogen and phosphorus may influence the growth of aquatic plants is best considered on a site-specific basis. Forest streams are influenced by biogeochemical processes (nutrient uptake, storage, transformation, and release through leaf senescence and root turnover) at the land-water interface. Riparian forests or retention of streamside management zones (SMZs) can strongly influence nutrient cycling and, by default, streamwater chemistry. Plants utilize primarily inorganic forms of N and P, converting them to organic form following uptake. While plant uptake of N can be significant, rates vary with stand age. Uptake rates may be high for young, rapidly growing stands due to high nutrient needs; however, rates typically decline as the riparian 9 forest matures (Lockaby and Walbridge 1998). While amounts of N stored in riparian vegetation can be high, denitrification appears to be the dominant process controlling N removal

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3258Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams rates (Table 2.1). Sediment deposition is the primary process controlling P removal, and riparian buffer widths sufficient to filter sediment are generally sufficient to remove P (Peterjohn and Correll 1984). Adsorption by soil minerals in riparian forests appears to be the dominant process governing P removal, with microbial immobilization and vegetation uptake of lesser importance (Table 2.2). Most nutrient standards have been developed for TN and TP. In forest settings, and even in pulp and paper mill effluents, these nutrients may be in forms that are not readily available to stimulate plant growth. In a review of the patterns and processes of stream water chemistry variation, Binkley (2001) noted that in the South, relatively unavailable forms of dissolved organic N are considerable compared to inorganic N forms (Figure 2.1). Lee (2002) reported on research that found that most particulate P is not available for algal growth. For urban and agricultural areas algal available P can be estimated as soluble ortho-P plus about 20% of particulate P. Lee concluded that "focusing nutrient control on available forms of P is important in selecting and evaluation of nutrient runoff BMPs. At this time most of the agricultural BMPs focus on the control of particulate P, much of which is not available to support algal growth. There is need to shift nutrient control BMP development and evaluation on those forms of N and P that support algal growth." Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Table 2.1. Mechanisms Associated with Nitrogen Removal in Southeastern Wetland and Riparian Forests, 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. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Table 2.2. Mechanisms Associated with Phosphorus Removal in Southeastern Wetland and Riparian Forests 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. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 2.1. Median Annual Concentrations of Nitrogen Compounds for Streams in the US South, West, and Northeast [adapted from Binkley et al. 2004] 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 1292-1.001.022

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Because inorganic forms of nutrients are those that are bioavailable, it would be expected that they would be more likely to correlate with stream response variables such as algal growth. In fact, analysis done by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and EPA show this to be the case. Section 6.5 of the FDEP/EPA document Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Waters (FDEP 2009c) presents just one analysis of stream periphyton data indicating much stronger relationships between inorganic nitrogen forms and periphyton compared to TN. To be sure, other water and site characteristics can also have important, and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3259Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams sometimes dominant, effects on water quality; however, that inorganic nitrogen forms are more important to algal response than TN is not an unexpected outcome. NCASI has intensively studied four US rivers for more than a decade. The studies involve annual or more frequent assessment of the entire aquatic community structure (from plants to fish) at multiple stations along each river segment. Nutrient dynamics in these streams have been studied and reported upon (NCASI 2001b, 2006a, 2006b, 2007b). The data have also been analyzed specifically to explore relationships between water quality and site variables that correlate with algal responses in the streams. The full paper Evaluation of Periphyton-Nutrient Relationships in NCASI Long-Term Receiving Water Study Data (Palumbo 2010) is provided in Attachment 1 to these comments. Important findings from the study are: • Modeled correlations between periphyton biomass and total nutrient concentrations were weak to non-existent. • Including inorganic nutrient forms rather than total nutrient concentrations in the models resulted in stronger corrlations with periphyton. • Including additional site-specific data (such as site-specific light information and stream velocity) changed the interpretation of observed periphyton-nutrient correlations and raised questions concerning the validity of using simple correlations to estimate periphyton-nutrient relationships on these waters. • These findings argue for site-specific analysis of at least some flowing waters with mechanistic water quality models. Findings from this study are consistent with numerous similar investigations, including results of the FDEP/EPA analysis noted above. This science suggests that TN and TP are poor predictors of stream impacts related to nutrients and, importantly, that better approaches exist to quantify the potential for relevant nutrient forms to impact water quality. NCASI has conducted several sets of experiments designed to improve the understanding of nitrogen and phosphorus forms in treated effluents and the bioavailability of those forms in the water environment. The studies were conducted using treated pulp mill effluents either alone, in dilutions with laboratory water, or in dilutions with river water. While those studies were conducted with treated effluent mixtures, they are relevant to EPA's efforts to manage nutrient impairments in flowing waters, lakes, and estuaries. The studies showed that the importance of point source loads of nutrients to receiving waters, when judged using only TN and TP measurements, will be overestimated (sometimes considerably) because TN and TP 12 measurements do not distinguish between nutrients that are or will become bioavailable and those forms that are essentially non-reactive (i.e., refractory). Enclosed with these technical comments is a detailed report, NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 967, containing those findings (NCASI 2009a). The report shows that:
1. A large portion of total organic nitrogen in pulp mill final effluents was not transformed to inorganic forms during laboratory reactor treatment periods lasting, in some cases, more than 100 days. On average, refractory nitrogen (i.e., organic nitrogen not bioavailable in the timeframes studied) was 49% of TN and refractory phosphorus was 26% of TP. These fractions appear to be inert with respect to their impact on water quality.
2. The degradation of total organic nitrogen and phosphorus that occurred did so over a period of months (average first order degradation rate constant for organic nitrogen of 0.047 days-1; average first order degradation rate constant for organic phosphorus of 0.054 days-1). In other words, it is estimated that it would take approximately 61 days for pulp mill final effluent organic nitrogen to degrade to 5% of its initial concentration and it would take approximately 56 days for pulp mill final effluent organic phosphorus to degrade to 5% of its initial concentration.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3260Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

3. Receiving water addition did not enhance the bioavailability of total organic nitrogen from pulp mill effluents. The proportion of refractory N/P in streams and effluents can be significant and criteria developed around TN and TP that do not account for refractory nutrient forms will lead to management actions and, potentially, to effluent controls that will have no beneficial impact on flowing waters or downstream estuaries. NCASI analyzed the data generated in the above study to consider the best way in which organic nitrogen should be treated for purposes of estimating the impact of a discharge on receiving water quality. That study is reported in NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 936 (NCASI 2007a) and is enclosed with these comments. From the Summary and Conclusions section of that report: "The biodegradability of nutrients is an important factor to consider when assessing the environmental significance of nutrient discharges generally and particularly when determining a TMDL. In many cases water quality models are used to establish the link between individual sources and the deleterious effects of an overload of nutrients. An analysis of data from pulp and paper effluent nutrient biodegradability studies is contained in this report. The results of this analysis can assist water quality modelers in making decisions about the model to choose, the development of source loads, and the estimation of model parameters." The following is a key finding of the analysis: "In general, the best fits are to the Group 2 models which treat particulate organic nitrogen (PON) and dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) as having both labile and refractory components. The worst fits are to the Group 1 models which include no 13 refractory or slow degrading PON and DON. This is a strong indication that models which consider the biodegradability of nutrients characterize the data best." Again, because EPA's proposed criteria for most flowing waters is based only on TN and TP concentrations (clearstreams excepted), conventional implementation of the criteria will over predict the influence of many point and nonpoint discharges, potentially leading to a misallocation of resources for unnecessary controls on point source effluents. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.044

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Decision Error Rates for Flowing Waters The approach described above is used below to estimate decision errors associated with EPA's proposed criteria for flowing waters. The analysis involves two datasets from non-reference flowing waters around the state (other than south Florida) for which SCI, TP, and TN are available. They are "Stream file2 for Xufeng_021009.xls" (SF2) and "RPS Data GGP.xls" (RPS) used by FDEP and apparently also by EPA in the evaluation of stressor-response relationships (see EPA TSD Appendix B-1). While these data files provide considerable information about paired nutrient and SCI concentrations, data are insufficient to base decision error estimates on geometric mean values. Therefore, the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3261Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams following evaluation of DU decision error rates does not fully account for incorporation of the duration and frequency components of the proposed criteria. Nonetheless, it may be assumed that additional samples would result in measurements that are both higher and lower than the existing values. Consequently, the SF2 and RPS data provide a sufficient basis for estimating decision error rates for the purpose of these comments. Because the primary response variable of interest to EPA and FDEP has been SCI, where lower values indicate worse conditions, the locations of the four decision error quadrants are inverted compared to the TP-chlorophyll a plot in the lakes example discussed previously. The SCI criterion of 40, the TP and TN criteria used in the evaluation is EPA's proposed criterion based on selecting the 75th percentile of reference streams. Flowing waters in the Bone Valley, North Central, Panhandle, and Peninsula EPA nutrient regions (EPANWR) were evaluated. Results are summarized in Table 3.6. Scatter plots of the data from which the calculations were made are provided in Appendix 1 and should be used to aid in interpretation of the percentage values presented in Table 3.6. A wide range of error of estimates exists even within each of the three decision error types. For example, Eni estimates range from 0% in the Bone Valley region to 86% in the North Central region based on SF2 data. In general, the range of error rate estimates is similar for TP and TN. Estimates derived from the separate data sources do not always agree for a given location, nutrient, and error type. For example, Eni for Bone Valley based on the RPS data was 86%, in contrast with the estimate of 0% from the SF2 data. However, a majority of the estimates show reasonable agreement between the datasets and many of the estimates are well above 50%. For example, evaluation of the RPS data yields Eni 27 estimates of 41 to 90% for total phosphorus. This means that 41 to 90% of surface waters characterized by the RPS data that exceed the proposed TP criterion are not impaired based on SCI data. For TN the range of Eni values using these data is 51 to 91%. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Table 3.6. Decision Error Estimates based on Two Sets of FDEP Flowing Waters Data 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. To aid in interpretation of the decision error rates shown in Table 3.6, results generated from a hypothetical regression in which the correlation between x and y variables is nearly zero are provided in the table and shown in Figure 3.5. For the purposes of this example, both stressor and response variable criteria are set at the median of each variable. Roughly equal numbers of data points are expected to fall within each of the four quadrants, yielding rates for all three decision errors at roughly 50%. The similarity of the random example decision error rates to those obtained for flowing waters is an illustration of the limited value of the proposed nutrient criteria. In contrast, all three types of error rates calculated for the proposed colored lakes TP criteria, including both baseline and modified criteria, are considerably lower (values in Table 3.5 are included in Table 3.6 for comparison). Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 3.5. Hypothetical, Randomly Generated Values for Uncorrelated X and Y Variables used for Decision Error Estimates in Table3.6 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. Of greatest use to water quality managers are criteria that yield low estimates of all three decision error types. High

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3262Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams error indicates that a criterion does not correctly identify a large proportion of unhealthy waters; other factors may be responsible for the impairment. High error indicates that a criterion incorrectly identifies a large proportion of healthy waters as unhealthy, or not attaining DUs when in fact they do. High Eni error indicates that a large proportion of waters exceeding the criterion are in fact healthy and attaining DUs. Environmental management decisions, including those involving establishment of numeric criteria, should be made with a goal of minimizing all three types of decision errors. As previously discussed, decision error rates will be lower where stronger regression relationships exist. In general, a high estimate of at least two of the three decision error types can be expected where there is little correlation between causal and response variables and where a single threshold or criterion value is established for both causal and response variables. As the proposed lake nutrient criteria illustrate, lower error rates for , , and Eni are achieved because of stronger correlations between nutrient concentrations and chlorophyll a as a response variable, and by allowance of a modified criterion where information on the condition of the response is available. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.053

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Box plots are an exploratory data analysis technique (e.g., see USEPA 2006) that characterizes the central tendency and spread of explanatory variable data associated with each group displayed (the four algal thickness quartiles). In each box plot in this section, a gray-shaded box shows values on the x axis between the 25th and 75th percentiles of the explanatory variable (interquartile range); a vertical line within each box shows the location of the median; horizontal lines (whiskers) to the left and right of the shaded area, if present, extend to the maximum data point within 1.5 box lengths; and an asterisk indicates a data point found beyond each whisker. These are often considered to be "outliers."Data that are normally distributed will have gray areas on either side of the median line that are of equal size. For lognormally distributed data (nutrient concentrations often appear log-normally distributed) that have a tail extending toward higher values, the shaded area will appear asymmetrical, with the area to the right of the median (higher x-axis values) appearing larger than the area to the left of the median (lower x-axis values). Results and Discussion Algal Thickness and SCI Because nutrients may impact the aquatic macroinvertebrate community through changes in aquatic plant growth, relating algal thickness to SCI may indicate algal thickness levels that are associated with poor or impaired macroinvertebrate communities. Figure 4.1 shows a scatter plot of SCI and algal growth, with each EPA nutrient watershed region (EPANWR) shown separately. Using an SCI of less than 40 as an indicator of impaired macroinvertebrate community, the figure shows that there are many locations with SCI >40 (considered biologically healthy by EPA) at higher algal thickness (>1.5 mm). In addition, some locations, particularly in the Peninsula, have low SCI scores even at the lowest average algal thickness values. This indicates that factors other than algal thickness can account for low SCI scores. Thus, in general, SCI does not appear to be significantly affected by algal thickness over the range of these data. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and river in Figure 4.1. SCI vs. Average Algal Thickness using RPS Data (algal thickness units are mm) from the comment report of the National Council for Air and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3263Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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. Average Algal Thickness, Average Percent Canopy Cover, and Stream Color Although it is unclear what level of average algal thickness would be likely to impair designated waterbody uses, the evaluation of average algal thickness quartiles remains useful for identifying variables that may influence algal thickness over the observed range. Figure 4.2 shows that the highest average algal thickness quartile (1.74 to 5.0 mm) occurs almost entirely in streams with less than 50% canopy cover, and that the lowest average algal thickness (0 to 0.32 mm) occurs almost entirely where canopy cover exceeds 50%, i.e., higher algal thickness generally only occurs where percent canopy cover is lower. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 4.2. Stream Average Percent Canopy Cover Data Grouped by Algal Thickness Quartile (algal thickness units are mm) 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. Figure 4.3 shows that the highest average algal thickness quartile consists almost entirely of flowing waters with less than 100 pcu, and that the lowest quartile is associated with flowing waters in which stream color exceeds ~60 pcu. However, low algal thickness may occur over a wide range of stream color (i.e., both higher and lower stream color). Combining observations on color and percent canopy cover, Figure 4.4 shows that where higher canopy cover exists, average algal thickness tends to be lower even when stream color is low (note the large number of blue triangles, indicating the lowest algal thickness quartile, located in the upper right portion of the plot). Higher observed algal thickness occurs over a range of canopy cover conditions and can occur with higher canopy cover where color is low. Algal thickness tends to be lower even in more open waters at higher stream color values. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 4.3. Stream Color Data Grouped by Algal Thickness Quartile (algal thickness units are mm; color units are pcu) 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. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 4.4. Average Percent Canopy Cover vs Stream Color for all RPS Data Locations (algal thickness quartiles shown using different symbols; 1=1.74-5.0 mm; 2=0.86-1.68 mm; 3= 0.32-0.86 mm; 4= 0-0.32 mm) 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. Average Algal Thickness and Nutrient Concentrations Box plots of average algal thickness quartiles and nutrient concentrations, including TP and TN, are shown in Figure 4.5. Generally, unlike color and percent canopy cover, the range and distribution of observed TP concentrations is similar across all four algal thickness quartiles.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3264Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and river in Figure 4.5. TP Concentrations Grouped by Algal Thickness Quartile; top panel: all data shown; bottom panel: TP scale adjusted to show box attributes (algal thickness units are mm, TP units are mg/L) 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. The lowest median TP concentration occurs in the highest algal thickness quartile. This suggests that TP concentration does not exert a strong influence on algal thickness in these waterbodies. A similar conclusion is supported with regard to TN concentration, where, for example, the highest algal thickness quartile is associated with the lowest median TN value (Figure 4.6). Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 4.6. TN Concentrations Grouped by Algal Thickness Quartile; top panel: all data shown; bottom panel: TN scale adjusted to show box attributes (algal thickness units are mm, TN units are mg/) 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. Figure 4.7 shows a relatively wide range of algal thickness at lower TP concentrations (<1.5 mg/L). In addition, a wide range of TP concentrations, up to 10 mg/L in one case, is observed at lower algal thickness values. This general pattern is also observed in each of the four FDEP nutrient regions, forming a cluster of values occurring at both low TP concentration and low algal thickness. Few, if any, values occur in the upper right of the plot where locations with both higher algal thickness and higher TP concentration would appear. These observations indicate that TP is not a strong determinant of average algal thickness over the range of values present. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 4.7. Algal Thickness and TP Concentration; top panel: all data shown, highest TP concentration in RPS dataset is 10 mg/L from STORET Site ID 21010055, PCS Phosphate FYI5, test site 3 in the North Central EPANWR; bottom panel: showing same dataset by EPA nutrient watershed regions with the x-axis scale restricted to maximum of 1 mg/L TP 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. How might algal thickness be affected by TP concentration where both canopy cover and color are low and higher light penetration is expected? Figure 4.8 indicates that even at low canopy cover and low color there is no apparent association between TP concentration and algal thickness, either considering all samples together or within individual nutrient regions (note that there are only a few observations from the North Central nutrient region). Figure 4.9 shows that 39 there also is no apparent trend between TN and algal thickness at lower color and percent canopy cover values. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 4.8. Algal Thickness and TP Concentration for All Locations with Color <200 and Percent Canopy Cover <50; top panel: all values shown; bottom panel: x-axis maximum set at 0.8 mg/L 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. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 4.9. Algal Thickness and TN

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3265Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Concentration for Locations with Color <200 and Percent Canopy Cover <50; x-axis maximum set at 6 mg/L (one value at TIN 17.8 mg/L and algal thickness = 1.8 not shown) 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. Algal Thickness and Other Explanatory Variables Additional box plots were produced to examine associations between algal thickness and other variables. Figure 4.10indicates, in general, that higher algal thickness is associated with higher total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) (primarily nitratenitrite) and lower Kjeldahl nitrogen (primarily organic N). The pattern of declining Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration with higher algal thickness is the opposite of what would be expected if this component of TN were contributing to excess algal growth. This pattern may be better explained by the tendency for organic nitrogen concentrations to be higher in colored waters. Higher average algal thickness also tended to be associated with lower turbidity and higher specific conductance (Figure 4.11). The association of higher average algal thickness with lower turbidity is consistent with the general patterns observed for stream color and average canopy cover, and may similarly reflect an increase in available light to support periphyton growth. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 4.10. Total Inorganic Nitrogen (top panel) and Kjeldahl Nitrogen (bottom panel) with algal thickness quartile (algal thickness units are mm, TIN and Kjeldahl units are mg/L) 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. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 4.11. Turbidity (top panel) and Specific Conductance (bottom panel) with Algal Thickness Quartile (turbidity units are assumed to be NTU, specific conductance units are umhos/cm) 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. Turbidity, specific conductance, and TIN represent apparent examples of stronger positive associations with algal thickness than either TP or TN concentration. This raises questions about whether the proposed TP and TN criteria will have a significant beneficial impact on the protection or attainment of DUs related to algal thickness in flowing waters. Management of nitrate-nitrite sources is likely to be much different from control of TN and TP, so the strongerassociation may be relevant to nutrient criteria development. More investigation is needed to evaluate the stressorresponse relationship between nitrate-nitrite and algal growth, and whether 43 the proposed nitrate-nitrite criterion for springs and clear flowing waters is appropriate for these streams 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.085

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-32668.0 Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Below 5.0 mg/L May Occur Naturally in Some Florida Waters Summary EPA may have erroneously removed waters from the benchmark stream category based on observations of dissolved oxygen (DO) below the Florida standard of 5.0 mg/L on the presumption that such DO levels are anthropogenic in cause. Numerous studies in the Southeast have shown that DO levels below 5 mg/L are common during the growing season even in areas with limited forest management or extensive riparian forests, or in watersheds with high percentages of forest (Joyce et al. 1985; Meyer 1992; Ice and Sugden 2003; Carey et al. 2007; Todd et al. 2009; Mehring et al. 2010). Based on a synoptic survey of 43 least-impaired and reference forest streams in the South Central Plains Ecoregion of Louisiana, Ice and Sugden (2003) found that >80% of those stream reaches had DO concentrations <5 mg/L and that almost 60% of monitored sites had DO concentrations <3 mg/L. Multiple reasons have been hypothesized to explain the observed low DO levels, including low stream flow velocity and organic substrates (Ice and Sugden 2003), high growing season air and water temperatures (Joyce et al. 1985), and high inputs of DOC (Meyer 1992). While the driving factors behind the naturally occurring low DO levels remain unclear, it is conceivable that each of the aforementioned factors play a contributing role. Main Technical Findings

• EPA removed streams listed as impaired due to low DO from the population of potential benchmark streams.

• Several studies of streams located in the Southeast US, particularly those involving blackwater and wetland streams, show that DO levels below 5.0 mg/L commonly occur.

• Streams with low DO (or other wastewater characteristics) should not be eliminated from consideration as benchmark streams unless it is shown that anthropogenic disturbance has caused significant changes in water quality characteristics. Specific Comments and Corresponding Science Analysis Mechanisms that drive DO concentrations in blackwater Coastal Plain streams are also becoming evident. Studies suggest that watershed characteristics coupled with high connectivity of blackwater Coastal Plain streams to their floodplains create conditions suitable for low levels of DO (Ice 1990; Utley et al. 2008; Todd et al. 2009). Blackwater streams are characterized by high DOC, high growing season water temperatures, and low streamflow velocities. Being located in the Coastal Plain, these streams often lack the watershed characteristics necessary to generate high DO concentrations (e.g., shallow and turbulent areas). Streamturbulence increases with increasing stream velocity and gradient, resulting in higher rates of reaeration (Ice 1990). Instream photosynthesis can also contribute to increased stream DO levels during daylight hours. In the Southeast, however, the low gradient of Coastal Plain streams results in low flow and stream velocities, particularly during the growing season. Coupling low flows and low aeration with stream waters tinted by organic acids leached from the floodplain results in lower 61 levels of primary production and, potentially, photosynthetically derived oxygen in Southeastern blackwater streams. The flat topography of Coastal Plain watersheds typically results in braided stream networks that allow for extensive connectivity between streams and the surrounding floodplain. This results in the formation of numerous instream floodplain swamps that make defining a single channel difficult. Results from Todd et al. (2009) support the hypothesis that blackwater stream low DO levels result from a combination of slow water flows and extended contact time with underlying sediments. Slow flows through instream swamps increase sediment deposition and thus sediment oxygen

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3267Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams demand (SOD), which is a critical and dominant sink for DO in blackwater river systems. Todd et al. (2009) reported that SOD rates were variable but could be quite high (14.2 g O2/m2/day), and that low flows coupled with large repositories for organic matter created areas of high oxygen demand. Low DO is not limited to the summer months. In Georgia, low DO and high SOD rates in Coastal Plain streams have been observed during the fall through spring months (Utley et al. 2008). Because areas of high oxygen demand were found in watersheds within multiple land uses (e.g., agriculture and relatively undisturbed forest streams), the authors concluded that low DO may be a natural phenomenon common for Coastal Plain streams. It is becoming increasingly evident that low DO levels are common for undisturbed forested watersheds and are not necessarily a sign of anthropogenic pollution or impairment. It is also clear that there is limited understanding of the mechanisms (and their interactions) that may induce a decline in DO. Researchers at the USDA Agricultural Research Service are actively providing insights into mechanisms influencing DO. Carey et al. (2007) found that algal periphyton growth was primarily limited by light availability, as chlorophyll a values did not approach nuisance levels even with additions of nitrate and phosphate. Current research by Mehring et al. (2010) suggests that high levels of DOC may be a result of low DO in some cases, and not an explanation of low DO as has been thought. These insights, coupled with the results from studies by Utley et al. (2008) and Todd et al. (2009), suggest that further research is necessary to identify factors influencing DO dynamics (e.g., substrate, flow rate, water residence time). 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.096

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Specific Comments and Corresponding Science Analysis Re-Evaluating the Support for Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen Criteria for Flowing Waters Introduction In documentation associated with its proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Florida, EPA appears to accept the conclusion by FDEP that stressor-response relationships for flowing waters, while not sufficiently strong to support criteria development directly, were nonetheless statistically significant and support development of criteria using a reference percentile approach. For the purpose of providing comments to EPA on its proposed criteria, a portion of the water quality data for flowing waters was re-evaluated to better understand the associations that exist between algal thickness, a potentially important nutrient criteria response variable, and a number of environmental factors including TP and TN. Data from FDEP's Rapid Periphyton Survey (RPS) dataset were used. The objective of the analysis was to describe levels of the explanatory variables that are associated with high and low algal biomass as measured by average algal thickness. Because of the high degree of variation often unaccounted for in the numerous regression analyses conducted by FDEP, an approach involving quartiles of the response variable was used to provide an assessment of general patterns. 

# Comment ID 1296-1.001.008

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3268Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Drew H. Organization: Wood Cellulose Manufacturing Lastly, according to FDEP's database, the Econfma River, as well as every other flowing stream in Taylor County, Florida, fails to meet the proposed IPVs. Since FDEP, using the Stream Condition Index (SCI), has routinely assessed the Econfina as excellent, and EPA Region 4 has recognized the Econfina as the appropriate reference stream for Fenholloway River restoration, the proposed IPVs are problematic. This clearly demonstrates the proposed IPVs are not associated with any identifiable adverse ecologic impact. 

# Comment ID 1301-1.001.005

Author Name: Hodge R. Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated Streams and Flowing Water Criteria: EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria ignores 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 cannot naturally meet due to natural diversity. EPA is proposing to use a "reference streams", a one-size-fits-all approach, to develop criteria for all streams/rivers in a region. The current TMDL process is the best approach to ensure soil types and other conditions for a water body are considered in setting standards. Many stakeholders and DEP TAC members do not support EPA's proposed reference approach or the similar approach used by DEP in its early rule drafts. The reference sites that DEP used to develop proposed criteria for each region were the most pristine sites, making the standards unattainable. To put it simply, the DEP and EPA identified the most pristine waterways in the state's six different regions. The concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen found in these water bodies are then applied to water bodies and discharges of water within these regions. It is difficult to comprehend how waters in more developed areas and discharges from commercial, agricultural and public water utilities could replicate absolutely pristine conditions. For example, in the Panhandle, the newly proposed phosphorus concentration is fourteen times more stringent (69 parts per billion) than the current standard for advanced wastewater treatment. 

# Comment ID 1301-1.001.008

Author Name: Hodge R. Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated In addition, the EPA rule does not consider that phosphorous and nitrogen is naturally occurring in different forms in some of the state's water bodies, and those levels are needed for the health of the system. EPA's proposal would negatively impact the health of those types of streams. For example, monitored stations on the Econfina and Aucilla Rivers are downstream of mostly undeveloped watersheds. Both have long-term average nitrate-nitrite concentrations

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3269Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams of less than 0.08 mg/L. Yet both have total nitrogen concentrations that exceed EPA's proposed thresholds because of a high fraction of naturally-occurring organic nitrogen introduced by groundwater and interaction with wetlands and forested floodplains. Conversely, two stations below agriculturally-intensive watersheds (the Alapaha and Withlacoochee rivers), have long-term average nitrate-nitrite values of 0.61 mg/L and 0.33 mg/L, respectively, but meet the EPA's proposed criterion for total nitrogen. This further signals why a site-specific alternative criterion must be considered. 

# Comment ID 1304-1.001.016

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. HydroQual states that "There is no scientifically based reason for establishing numeric nutrient criteria because nutrient concentrations alone do not impair designated uses..." (HydroQual at Section 3.1) The FDEP has published its own report, titled "Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and Springs/Clear Streams" ("Streams Criteria Review", March 2010). In this report the Department makes the following observation: "...EPA should consider developing criteria for Total Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen, rather than TN, or to rely on the nitrate criterion as the criterion for in-stream protection related to nitrogen." As conclusively demonstrated in the comments prepared by NCASI, HydroQual, Entrix, EPA's SAB, FDEP and many others, the setting of numeric nitrogen criterion based on the reference stream approach is not scientifically defensible. The FPPAEA is in agreement with the FDEP assessment. FDEP's Streams Criteria Review, Section B.1 which states, "...EPA did not fully acknowledge the basic limitation of the approach - that the resultant criteria are not linked to impairment." Streams Criteria Review at Page 10.



# Comment ID 1304-1.001.028

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. 2. Reference Stream Approach The Agency's arbitrary choice to establish TN and TP criteria based on a threshold of percentile distributions (or "reference stream" approach) is flawed for two main reasons. First, the EPA's use of the reference stream approach, as stated above, is based on the wrong assumption that TN and TP can be used to accurately predict nutrient impairment in flowing lakes and streams. Second, as discussed below, the Agency's use of a statistical methodology to set an

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3270Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams arbitrary threshold is flawed. In its assessment of the Agency's choice to establish a threshold based on distributions of reference water bodies, NCASI properly concludes that EPA fails to adequately recognize that as additional criteria are derived using this approach, the number of reference water bodies declared to be impaired (when in fact they are not) increases rapidly. (NCASI at Section 5.0) Continuing to establish linked criterion based on this approach would ultimately result in all reference water bodies being declared as impaired for at least one criterion. 

# Comment ID 1304-1.001.037

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. In the absence of a stressor-response relationship between nutrients and measures of biological condition in streams, EPA inappropriately chose SCI as a means to determine reference conditions for a distribution-based approach. The report from Entrix provides useful comments as to why EPA flawed in this approach. (Entrix at Section 1.0.) The report provides the following conclusions as to why the use of the SCI as a surrogate for nutrient enrichment is flawed.

• Individual metrics of the SCI that may be sensitive to nutrient enrichment show no statistical relationship with nutrient concentrations.

• If nutrient concentrations intrinsically affected certain SCI taxa groups, then one would expect that the benthic taxa within an EPA NWR region would be more similar than when adjacent regions are compared. Taxa from SCI metrics potentially sensitive to differences in nutrient concentrations were just as similar between NWR regions as they were within regions.

• The effect of nutrients on invertebrate taxa is relatively unknown, as it is often complicated by the stronger influence of habitat characteristics, turbidity, and sedimentation.



# Comment ID 1331-1.001.005

Author Name: Aldstadt S. Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works A. The Regional Nutrient Criteria for Streams Are Scientifically and Technically Indefensible and Legally Deficient EPA proposes numeric criteria for total nitrogen and total phosphorus for Florida using a statistical-based approach that relies on the nutrient levels in reference streams. (75 Fed.Reg. at pp.4184-4189.) In short, EPA divided Florida's Flowing waters into four groups broadly defined by region and assumed that the dynamics of all streams within the categories are the same. EPA derived the criteria using the 75th percentile of nutrient concentrations in selected

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3271Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams healthy streams within the four regions. The criteria development procedures largely ignore in-stream conditions and biological responses. In the proposed rule, EPA acknowledges that it "did not find sufficient scientific support for [the use of stressor-response relationships] in the derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida streams." (ld. at p. 4194.) Rather, EPA characterizes the regional numeric nutrient criteria as eliminating the need for a "substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site-by-site, segment-by-segment basis." (ld. at p. 4192.) 

# Comment ID 1331-1.001.009

Author Name: Aldstadt S. Organization: City of Pensacola Public WorksFurther, demonstration of a stressor-response relationship is necessary to establish a reasonable expectation of causeand-effect between the proposed nutrient criteria and the desired water quality outcomes. Without a link between low biological productivity and elevated nutrient levels in waters where the criteria would apply, EPA cannot ensure that limiting nutrient levels to levels present in reference streams will protect beneficial uses. Unlike water quality standards for toxic constituents, EPA cannot assume that increasingly stringent nutrient criteria will produce increasingly improved water quality. Indeed, there is a threshold at which more stringent nutrient criteria will harm water quality because nutrients are essential to a healthy aquatic ecosystem. For example, there is little eutrophication in effluent-dominated waters and many streams of the arid west. The Santa Ana Sucker is a federally recognized threatened species that resides in the Santa Ana River and depends on nutrient-enrichment for food supply production. Overly stringent criteria adopted for the Santa Ana River would thus further threaten the sucker. To develop scientifically defensible nutrient criteria, EPA must identify the threshold nutrient levels needed to support the designated uses of each water body using site-specific data. 

# Comment ID 1335.001.004

Author Name: Littlejohn C. Organization: Florida Land Council First, Florida's DEP's own technical advisory council met last week to review and provide comments regarding your technical support document and your proposed rule. Made up of scientists and technical experts, the council clearly found major problems with the record stream approach, and they are very concerned that EPA and Florida's DEP would promulgate a standard that is so poorly backed by science. A transcript of their discussions was submitted into your docket, and I hope you will pay special attention to their findings. 

# Comment ID 1335.001.006

Author Name: Littlejohn C. Organization: Florida Land Council

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3272Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams And last, I hope you pay close attention to your own science advisory board subcommittee which met last September and also reviewed your technical support document for setting these standards. Your own advisory board found that your methods for setting stream criteria were indefensible. A source involved in the peer review said that your approach only gives you a probability, and that it is consequently inappropriate for nationwide use when deriving protective nutrient standards for streams. 

# Comment ID 1346-1.001.009

Author Name: Still D. Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 3. EPA was not able to demonstrate a sufficiently strong correlation between biological response indicators and nutrient concentrations in colored streams. There is no evidence showing how changes will manifest themselves in the streams within SRWMD should nutrient reductions occur. Given the unknown cost of attainment, affected parties must have an expectation of what the biological response in streams will be. Affected parties also deserve assurance in the form of robust studies and demonstrations that efforts to reduce nutrients will achieve desired results, and that the results justify the cost of implementation. 

# Comment ID 1346-1.001.011

Author Name: Still D. Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 5. The use of total nitrogen as the regulated criterion, rather than presumably anthropogenic oxidized nitrogen in the form of nitrate-nitrite, misidentifies sources of nitrogen in the system to the detriment of affected parties and the health of the streams. For example, monitored stations on the Econfina and Aucilla Rivers are downstream of mostly undeveloped watersheds. Both have long-term average nitrate-nitrite concentrations of less than 0.08 mg/L. Yet bothhave total nitrogen concentrations that exceed EPA's proposed thresholds because of a high fraction of naturallyoccurring organic nitrogen introduced by interaction with wetlands and forested floodplains. Conversely, two stations below agriculturally-intensive watersheds (the Alapaha and Withlacoochee rivers), have long-term average nitrate-nitrite values of 0.61 mg/L and 0.33 mg/L, respectively, but meet the EPA's proposed criterion for total nitrogen. 

# Comment ID 1346-1.001.012

Author Name: Still D. Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 6. SRWMD requests that EPA determine how streams that naturally exceed nitrogen and phosphorus limits will be categorized as impaired. If an otherwise healthy system exceeds the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, it is reasonable to assume that affected parties would be forced to develop site-specific criteria for these streams to demonstrate

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3273Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams compliance, which imposes an additional and unnecessary burden on private and public owners of undeveloped and protected floodplains. 

# Comment ID 1348-1.001.009

Author Name: Vick J. Organization: Gulf Power Company 3. Scientific Basis for NNC A substantial problem with EPA's "reference stream approach" is that there is no empirical link between EPA's proposed criteria and impairment (no "dose-response" relationship). This statement is verified by the following reference: ... 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 NNC 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] [2] 75 Fed. Reg. 4174, 

# Comment ID 1350-1.001.003

Author Name: Schwartz J. Organization: American Forest & Paper Association The criteria for lakes, and springs and clear streams are derived using the "stressorresponse" approach; EPA is proposing chlorophyll a, total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) criteria for these waters. Because neither the FDEP when it was developing criteria, nor EPA when it took over the development process, was able to establish causal response relationships between TN and TP and response variables such as algal growth sufficient to establish criteria, EPA established criteria for rivers/streams and canals using a "reference condition" approach. The proposed criteria for rivers/streams include a specific methodology resulting in "downstream protection values (DPV)" [2] to make the levels more restrictive based on possible impacts to downstream lakes and estuaries. FDEP performed an analysis of EPA's criteria and concluded due to the stringency of the DPV that "over 80% of FDEP's "reference "or pristine sites exceed the criteria and would be deemed impaired" and that "35% of Florida's most pristine surface waters will fail EPA's proposed in-stream criteria." [3] This FDEP analysis helps put in perspective the dramatic impact that final promulgation of the Proposal would have on the status of Florida's waters and dischargers to those waters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3274Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams [2] EPA withdrew the DPV portion of the Proposal in from Peter S. Silva, Assistant Administrator, EPA to Michael Sole, Secretary FDEP, 03/17/2010. [3] Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters published January 26, 2010, Prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, February 15, 2010. While EPA withdrew the DPV’s (see text accompanying FN 2), EPA will still consider how to protect downstream waters in a rulemaking next year. 

# Comment ID 1350-1.001.016

Author Name: Schwartz J. Organization: American Forest & Paper Association AF&PA has not undertaken its own independent scientific analysis of EPA's proposed criteria. However, analyses supporting comments filed by the FPPAEA, NCASI, FWQC, and other commentors all demonstrate the scientific flaws in the Proposal. Because the receiving waters for AF&PA member facilities in Florida and across the country are primarily streams and rivers, our comments today focus on those criteria in particular.

• Factors Other Than TN and TP are More Important to Algal Response: NCASI analysis confirms the lack of stressorresponse relationship using EPA's criteria. It also demonstrates that other factors are more important to algal response than TN and TP, including stream shading, stream color and dissolved inorganic forms of nutrients. [4] As noted below, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), in considering a guidance document on EPA's empirical approach to criteria derivation, also noted that stream shading and other factors are important in determining algal growth. [4] NCASI Comments, Section 4, pages 

# Comment ID 1350-1.001.017

Author Name: Schwartz J. Organization: American Forest & Paper Association

• Uncertainty Analysis Demonstrates the Lack of Predictive Power of EPA's Criteria: EPA is required by its own guidance to perform an uncertainty analysis to estimate and address quantifiable uncertainties in its approaches for flowing waters, but did not do so. NCASI, however, has undertaken an uncertainty analysis of the proposed criteria, and concluded that the criteria are likely to be poor predictors of the designated use status of Florida's flowing waters.[5] In other words, properly derived criteria should function in a manner such that receiving streams with ambient water concentrations above the criteria are not achieving their designated uses, and those with concentrations below the criteria should be attaining uses. However, NCASI's uncertainty analysis demonstrates that not only is this relationship absent, but in some cases the predictive performance of the proposed criteria was comparable when the criteria were applied to data generated at random.[6] [5] "Analysis and Comments on Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3275Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Flowing Waters; Proposed Rule, Comments by: National Council for Air and Stream Improving, Inc. (NCASI), April 27, 2010 ("NCASI Comments"), Section 3. [6] Id. 

# Comment ID 1350-1.001.018

Author Name: Schwartz J. Organization: American Forest & Paper Association

• Inorganic Forms of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Have Stronger Links to Impairments [7]: Soluble inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorous have a more direct link to the growth of aquatic plants because they are generally more bioavailable than organic and particulate forms of N and P, which comprise a large and often majority fraction of the TN and TP in many flowing waters. Studies demonstrate that only bioavailable forms of N and P contribute to aquatic plant growth that can cause impairments. As will be discussed below, this is an important consideration for pulp and paper mill effluents (see section IV. B). [7] NCASI Comments, Section 1. 

# Comment ID 1350-1.001.020

Author Name: Schwartz J. Organization: American Forest & Paper Association

• The Approach to Regulation of BOD Should be Considered for Nutrients: The report from HydroQual [9] presents concepts that the Agency should consider when selecting appropriate causal variables or even determining the need to set numeric nutrient criteria. That approach better incorporates site specific factors in establish regulatory requirements.

[9] Hydroqual Comments on EPA's Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (EPAHQ-OW-2009-0596,April 19, 2010) 

# Comment ID 1350-1.001.023

Author Name: Schwartz J. Organization: American Forest & Paper Association

• The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Report Supports Many of the Above Deficiencies in EPA's Criteria Identified by Commentors: EPA's own SAB highlights several of 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).[11] Specifically, "[t]he

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3276Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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." [12] 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. [13] (Emphasis added). In short, as numerous commentors and the SAB have demonstrated, EPA cannot show that its proposed numeric criteria are "necessary to protect [designated] uses" because it cannot even demonstrate what effect its proposed criteria will have on a designated use. Absent a showing of a cause-and-effect relationship between the proposed criteria and a biological response in the water body or impairment status, EPA also cannot demonstrat that its proposed numeric criteria are based on "sound scientific rationale" or "scientifically defensible methods," as required by EPA regulations and guidance. [11] See 1-8-10 Science Advisory Board (SAB) Ecological Processes and Effects Committee Advisory Report ("Draft SAB 2010") The 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. [12] Draft SAB 2010 at 4. [13] Id. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.008

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County 2. Stream nutrient criteria should be indicative of site-specific properties. Stream health should not be evaluated through a reference approach and by nutrient chemistry alone. The natural background properties of stream watersheds should be more thoroughly investigated by the EPA. The soil in undisturbed, forested areas of watersheds, for example, can contain nitrogen and phosphorus levels very close to, or even above, the limits proposed by the EPA. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.011

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3277Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Polk County has worked diligently with the FDEP to gather the best available biological information to supplement our water quality data when evaluating the health of our streams. For in-tact streams especially (i.e. streams with unaltered channels and minimally impacted riparian zones), additional site specific criteria, such as the Florida Stream Condition Index (SCI), should be used in conjunction with water chemistry analyses to determine if the nutrient concentrations are truly impacting their health. Many of these streams are naturally high in nutrients and the benthic invertebrate communities are often quite healthy. The reference approach used by EPA to prescribe stream nutrient limits does not account for these situations. Polk County watersheds contain many "high-nutrient" streams and site-specific biological assessments should be conducted before listing them as impaired based on nutrient chemistry alone. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.057

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams

• EPA explains that a host of potential effects including stream canopy, stream morphology, bottom type and the benthic community structure that interact with the concentration of nutrients to affect water quality conditions yet does not develop a criterion based on any physical or biological response. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.058

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams

• EPA should apply ecological concepts as a framework for establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida streams. Ecological principles such as the river continuum concept, which allows for the stream networks to be described by a continuum of biological responses linked by energy flow pathways based on stream order, should be used as the basis for establishing numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.059

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams

• The EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis that excess TN and TP will

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3278Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams have adverse effects" and then go on to state that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary". This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be necessarily protective of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.064

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk CountyStreams • EPA should substantiate their claim that there are no approaches currently available to infer any doseresponse relationships in Florida streams. At minimum, it would be beneficial to provide descriptive plots that identify the potential limiting nutrient in these streams and the potential physical and biological factors that interact with nutrient loadings and concentrations to result in adverse conditions that threaten the full achievement of aquatic life use designations in Florida streams. This information was presented in some detail in the discussion of nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes in the EPA's technical support documents but was absent for Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.067

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams

• The majority of reference streams used in the approach are located in the Peninsula and Panhandle regions with only two sites in the Bone Valley and very few overall in southwest Florida. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.070

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams

• The complexities of developing effective numeric nutrient criteria relies not only on the estimation of the number itself, but in having a flexible implementation strategy that allows for the recognition of the inherent differences among streams in their response to nutrient inputs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3279Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.109

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County STREAMS (40 FR Part 131 Section III.C) EPA has proposed regionally specific numeric nutrient criteria for Florida streams based on a reference site approach. The introduction to this section of the rule begins with a description of the effects of excessive nutrients on physical and biological processes that "can lead to changes in the stream community and, ultimately to the stream ecology that supports the overall function of the linked aquatic ecosystem" (page 72). EPA goes on to explain a host of potential effects including stream canopy, stream morphology, bottom type and the benthic community structure that interact with the concentration of nutrients to effect water quality conditions. These interactions are recognized in the proposed rule but not considered in the development of the regional numeric nutrient criteria. Instead, EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis" that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects" and then go on to state that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary" (page 73). This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be protection of stream water quality. The proposed rule goes on to state that while EPA has recommended that nutrient criteria include both causal and response variables (i.e., a dose-response relationship), they state on page 75 that "there are currently no available approaches to interpret these data to infer scientifically supported thresholds for these nutrient specific response variables in Florida streams". This statement is lacking any supporting evidence in either the rule or the TSD. Given the preceding description of the value of understanding the causal influences of nutrients in affecting water quality (and the achievement of designation uses for streams), EPA should substantiate their claim that there are no approaches currently available to infer these relationships in Florida streams. At minimum, it would be beneficial to provide descriptive plots that identify the potential limiting nutrient in these streams and the potential physical and biological factors that interact with nutrient loadings and concentrations to result in adverse conditions that threaten the full achievement of aquatic life use designations in Florida streams. This information was presented in some detail in the discussion of nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes in EPA's TSDs, but was curiously absent for Florida streams. It is recognized that the development of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams was intended to replace the need for site-specific analysis; however, in doing so EPA has eliminated any potential scientific justification for the resulting criteria to be mechanistically linked to an adverse biological response or condition. If such analysis was performed and found to be insufficient for the development of numeric criteria then this is essential information that the stakeholders in the numeric nutrient criteria should be made aware of. If theoretical relationships were weak or unsupported by the empirical evidence, then one is left to conclude that either there is no relationship between nutrients and stream quality in Florida streams or that there is a lack of ability to fully characterize the effects of nutrients in Florida streams with the available data. While the first scenario is unlikely given the substantive work performed throughout the world that links anthropogenic contributions to eutrophication, the second explanation is highly plausible and suggests that the empirical testing had a high type II error or low power to detect the effects of nutrient enrichment. This outcome would

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3280Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams suggest that the relationships between nutrient enrichment and adverse biological outcomes are more complex than the analysis was able to accommodate. If this is the case, it is unclear why EPA supposes that regional numeric nutrient criteria will be protective of full aquatic life uses. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.119

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County The complexities of developing effective numeric nutrient criteria rely not only on the estimation of the number itself but in having a flexible implementation strategy that allows for the recognition of the inherent differences among streams in their response to nutrient inputs. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.120

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County EPA offers the SSAC process as a mechanism for alleviating the situations where the regional criteria are either over or under protective. The SSAC process in Florida has historically been a real problem and subject to extensive challenge. Based on FDEP analysis of the proposed EPA IPV rules, approximately 52.5 percent of all statewide data stations are not in attainment (FDEP, 2010c). This likely represents a significant amount of Type I errors (i.e. false positives) while many blackwater or wetland dominated streams will simply not be in attainment due to naturally high levels of nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.122

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County As stated in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0009: "Multiple factors can strongly influence theexpression of biological responses to nutrient across water bodies, such as water velocity,residence time, availability of other nutrients, presence of grazers, availability of light (due to tree canopy cover and/or water transparency) and availability of suitable habitat". An independent reviewer (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010) states that physical factors dominate most aspects of stream biology and overshadow impacts of nutrients. We concur with this statement and find the EPA and FDEP methods deficient in characterizing stream hydrodynamics (including seasonal and annual variability). Also the general presumption of "not reference" equals impaired can be problematic. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.178

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3281Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Additionally, in reviewing EPA documentation related to NWRs, it seems the EPA has developed criteria based on EPA STORET stations and not on WBIDs. For example, in the Bone Valley, 22 STORET stations were used however this only represents 16 WBIDs. Up to 3 STORET stations were found in 1 WBID for Bone Valley (and there are likely higher ratios for other NWRs). Some weighting or averaging will be needed for multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.180

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County The reference approach used to develop the NNC for streams relied on a reference site approach developed by FDEP. The FDEP approach to determine reference sites for Florida streams was based on the development of a Stream Condition Index. FDEP's Stream Condition index approach was specifically designed and rigorously evaluated to establish reference streams based on an SCI threshold value. These "reference" streams are then categorized as meeting their full aquatic life uses. EPA used streams that achieved the threshold SCI value as the reference streams so long as they were not listed as impaired based on FDEP's 303(d) evaluation for nutrients or dissolved oxygen. The location for EPA stream reference sites was taken from FDEP's SCI development document (Fore et al., 2007) and can be seen in Figure 7. Clearly, the majority of these reference streams are in the Peninsula and Panhandle regions with only two sites in the Bone Valley and very few overall in southwest Florida. EPA used the distribution statistics for the reference sites they identified by collating existing nutrient data in these streams, calculating annual average TN and TP concentrations and generating distributional statistics of the log transformed annual averages. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 7. EPA reference site locations for streams based on FDEP's Stream Condition Index. See original comment letter. The third step in EPA's approach was to select a threshold value from the cumulative distribution from which the regionally specific numeric nutrient criterion for TN and TP will be established. EPA states as an example that "selection of the central tendency of a log normal distribution would imply that half of the biologically healthy sites are not attaining their designated uses". Our understanding of the description of the process is that this statement is a misconception. Based on the description of the process described above, our interpretation of this example is that any given stream might exceed the threshold value 50% of the time. This is a very different interpretation and has important implications with respect to the evaluation strategy described subsequently in section d on page 84 of the rule document. For example, if ten streams were used in the development of the criterion over 20 years of data and all streams had identical distributions, this would lead to 200 data points, half of which would be over the 50th percentile threshold value. Each individual stream would also have 50% of its annual averages over that value. In general, the rule needs far great detail in the description of the data used and the evaluation strategy than was provided in either the rule or the TSD.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3282Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1352-1.001.182

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County The underlying approach of using the SCI and IWR listing is too simplified. SCI has been shown to exhibit significant variation between site visits where ‘...DEP biologists, who noted that many reference streams, formally evaluated as "excellent" using the pre-2004 SCI criteria, were now considered "fair", or sometimes "poor" using the SCI 2004 thresholds' (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107). It is acknowledged that all "confounding factors" cannot reasonably be identified and that only post-2004 SCI scores are being used; however FDEP provided significant amounts of data to establish "reference" streams and EPA has only chosen to use the SCI metric. FDEP's reference approach included SCI, habitat assessment, hydrologic score, land disturbance indicator (LDI) score as well as periphyton community structure. Simply including only sites that are not listed on the IWR for nutrients and/or DO also is questionable due to that fact that many streams in Florida exhibit blackwater characteristics or are heavily influenced by wetland systems. In many cases, nutrients can be naturally higher while DOs can be naturally lower as a result of these influences. As a result, some WBIDs with "healthy" SCI scores are not included. In an effort to analyze the correlation between Stream Condition Index (SCI) and IWR listings, data provided by the FDEP in Microsoft excel format was used. This data is based on EPA methodology and the file (‘IPV Data Distribution Based (Final Data Used).xls') was downloaded from the FDEP ftp site. No spreadsheet was readily available from the EPA; however according to the FDEP documentation description: "This is the final data used to derive the IPV criteria using distribution based approach of biologically healthy sites." Figure 8 presents a histogram plot of all SCI values versus WBID IWR designation. Note that several SCI values can occur within a WBID while other WBIDs do not have an SCI (and are not plotted). Significant overlap exists between the SCIs found on WBIDs listed on the IWR when compared to WBIDs not listed on the IWR. As described in the Federal Register, WBIDs listed for any nutrient or DO impairments were not included. Original comment letter contains additional data or information for lakes. (Figure 8: Comparison of all SCI values based on IWR listing.) See original comment letter. Additionally, FDEP recommended an SCI cutoff of 35 for "healthy" systems (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107) while EPA has proposed 40. FDEP's proposed cutoff has more analysis defending its result. The proposed system (i.e., SCI and IWR listing) is not adequate in accounting for spatial and temporal variation. The majority of SCI scores represent 1 or 2 scores per site, while SCI scores are not available for many WBIDs. Therefore temporal and spatial variability is severely limited. Additionally, in reviewing the calculations establishing TN/TP values, it seems EPA is using STORET station locations and not WBIDs. For example, the Bone Valley TN/TP values were calculated based on 22 average site measurements (N=22) at STORET stations (Table 2). However, note that these 22 average site measurements represent only 16 WBIDs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3283Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Original comment letter contains additional data or information for lakes. (Table 2. Bone Valley Example) See original comment letter. In reviewing the Bone Valley IPV calculations for TN, it seems only a small fraction of available data was utilized in their analysis. This is especially astounding when comparing the EPA's data to the FDEP IWR data base. To summarize, EPA used 16 WBIDs and 165 data points to establish TN IPVs for Bone Valley (which has 116 WBIDs according to EPA NWR delineations). Therefore approximately 14 percent of Bone Valley WBIDs are included in the EPA analysis. In terms of amount of data used, ATM looked up TN data available in FDEP IWR_Run37 for WBID 1658 and found 68 data points are available (EPA used only 8 measurements for this WBID). For WBID 1443D, 241 TN data points are available in FDEP IWR_Run73 (EPA used only 6 measurements for this WBID). It is acknowledged that EPA performed some additional data filtering, including excising data measured at deeper than 1 meter from the surface, however this additional filtering does not account for the paucity of data used in the above analysis. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.184

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County EPA used FDEP list of least disturbed streams in Florida which included the SCI as well as many other metrics. The FDEP also included many benchmark streams where low DO values occurred. This acknowledges that some streams with significant wetland influences or blackwater characteristics can naturally exhibit low DO values (i.e. less than 5 mg/l) and still exhibit a ‘healthy' SCI. Despite these benefits of the FDEPs protocol, most of the metrics (SCI, periphyton, land disturbance, etc.) exhibit significant variation from year to year and season to season. The identification of healthy streams based on FDEP staff experience seems reliable, however refinement of adequate metrics to objectify this approach is still needed. More longterm data on SCI and other metrics is ultimately needed to reduce this variability. Also, FDEP recommended an SCI cutoff of 35 for "healthy" systems (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107) while EPA has proposed 40. FDEP's proposed cutoff has more analysis defending its result. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.002

Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3284Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Comment 1: Inappropriate use of "Statistical Probability of Reference Streams" 1-1) The stressor-reponse approach for deriving nutrient criteria involves quantifying the statistical relationship between nutrient concentrations and a biological response related to the designated use of a waterbody. However, accurate relationships between nutrients and a biological response (e.g. chlorophyll a) is difficult to determine and highly variable. The proposed criteria for streams are based on a stream biological condition metric coupled with statistical associated measurements of Total Nitrogen (N) and Total Phosphorus (TP) concentrations. EPA's application of this "Statistical Probability of Reference Streams" for deriving stream criteria is not appropriate due to the limitation of not linking the criteria with impairment. As noted by EPA's Science Advisory Board review, the statistical probability approach is a scientifically basded method for developing numeric nutrient criteria, if the approach is properly applied. However, the uncertainty associeated with estimated statistical relationships is problematic if the approach is used as a"stand alone" method. This is because statistical associations may not be biologically relevent and do not prove causeand-effect. These last two points are important given EPA's lack of correlation found between nutrients and chlorophylla a in Florida streams. As a result, EPA's approach of statistical "relationships" can not be developed without there being a mechanistic (cause-and-effect) foundation that relates how nutrients impact water quality. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.016

Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division 1-4) EPA proposes a dual nutrient criteria standard whereby a biological response would need to be confirmed along with an exceedance of numeric nutrient criteria before the waterbody is deemed impaired. In most cases where only nutrient criteria are violated and a biological response is not elevated, the waterbody would still be unimpaired. Recognizing that at a certain threshold of nutrient overenrichment an adverse biological response will result, nutrient concentrations above a certain percentage of the numeric criteria would result in criteria violation, regardless of the actual biological impairment. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.019

Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division We believe that great caution must be exercised in using statistical relationships that lack a clear cause-and-effect response in the development of nutrient criteria. This approach can lead to the development of criteria that require arbitrary nutrient restrictions, which can trigger large expenditures for "controls." An appropriate methodology should be used, such as watershed, lake, and estuary models to determine scientifically valid criteria. It is well worth the time needed to develop these models to get the criteria "right". The State of Georgia has recently made significant investments in modeling tools that could assist in effort and we would welcome the opportunity to work with EPA and other stakeholders on the development of appropriate standards and methodology to implement numeric nutrient criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3285Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1355-2.001.004

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Streams • EPA explains that a host of potential effects including stream canopy, stream morphology, bottom type and the benthic community structure that interact with the concentration of nutrients to affect water quality conditions yet does not develop a criterion based on any physical or biological response. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.034

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners EPA should apply ecological concepts as a framework for establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida streams. Ecological principles such as the river continuum concept, which allows for the stream networks to be described by a continuum of biological responses linked by energy flow pathways based on stream order, should be used as the basis for establishing numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.035

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners The EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects" and then go on to state that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary". This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be necessarily protective of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.040

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners EPA should substantiate their claim that there are no approaches currently available to infer any dose-response

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3286Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams relationships in Florida streams. At minimum, it would be beneficial to provide descriptive plots that identify the potential limiting nutrient in these streams and the potential physical and biological factors that interact with nutrient loadings and concentrations to result in adverse conditions that threaten the full achievement of aquatic life use designations in Florida streams. This information was presented in some detail in the discussion of nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes in the EPA's technical support documents but was absent for Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.043

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners The majority of reference streams used in the approach are located in the Peninsula and Panhandle regions with only two sites in the Bone Valley and very few overall in southwest Florida. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.046

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners The complexities of developing effective numeric nutrient criteria relies not only on the estimation of the number itself, but in having a flexible implementation strategy that allows for the recognition of the inherent differences among streams in their response to nutrient inputs. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.081

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners STREAMS EPA has proposed regionally specific numeric nutrient criteria for Florida streams based on a reference site approach. The introduction to this section of the rule begins with a description of the effects of excessive nutrients on physical and biological processes that "can lead to changes in the stream community and, ultimately to the stream ecology that supports the overall function of the linked aquatic ecosystem" (page 72). EPA goes on to explain a host of potential effects including stream canopy, stream morphology, bottom type and the benthic community structure that interact with the concentration of nutrients to effect water quality conditions. These interactions are recognized in the proposed rule but not considered in the development of the regional numeric nutrient criteria. Instead, EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis" that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects" and then go on to state that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3287Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams by segment basis is no longer necessary" (page 73). This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be protection of stream water quality. The proposed rule goes on to state that while EPA has recommended that nutrient criteria include both causal and response variables (i.e., a dose-response relationship), they state on page 75 that "there are currently no available approaches to interpret these data to infer scientifically supported thresholds for these nutrient specific response variables in Florida streams". This statement is lacking any supporting evidence in either the rule or the TSD. Given the preceding description of the value of understanding the causal influences of nutrients in affecting water quality (and the achievement of designation uses for streams), EPA should substantiate their claim that there are no approaches currently available to infer these relationships in Florida streams. At minimum, it would be beneficial to provide descriptive plots that identify the potential limiting nutrient in these streams and the potential physical and biological factors that interact with nutrient loadings and concentrations to result in adverse conditions that threaten the full achievement of aquatic life use designations in Florida streams. This information was presented in some detail in the discussion of nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes in EPA's TSDs, but was curiously absent for Florida streams. It is recognized that the development of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams was intended to replace the need for site-specific analysis; however, in doing so EPA has eliminated any potential scientific justification for the resulting criteria to be mechanistically linked to an adverse biological response or condition. If such analysis was performed and found to be insufficient for the development of numeric criteria then this is essential information that the stakeholders in the numeric nutrient criteria should be made aware of. If theoretical relationships were weak or unsupported by the empirical evidence, then one is left to conclude that either there is no relationship between nutrients and stream quality in Florida streams or that there is a lack of ability to fully characterize the effects of nutrients in Florida streams with the available data. While the first scenario is unlikely given the substantive work performed throughout the world that links anthropogenic contributions to eutrophication, the second explanation is highly plausible and suggests that the empirical testing had a high type II error or low power to detect the effects of nutrient enrichment. This outcome would suggest that the relationships between nutrient enrichment and adverse biological outcomes are more complex than the analysis was able to accommodate. If this is the case, it is unclear why EPA supposes that regional numeric nutrient criteria will be protective of full aquatic life uses. The EPA should apply ecological concepts as a framework for establishing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida streams. Ecological principles such as Vannote et. al. (1980) who describe a river continuum concept that allows for the stream networks to be described by a continuum of biological responses linked by energy flow pathways based on stream order should be considered as the basis for establishing numeric nutrient criteria. This concept considers that different stream orders have different ecological roles and therefore have different structure and function. Currently, EPA considers all streams within a region to require the same nutrient criteria. The diverse array of Florida stream reaches should be considered in developing meaningful numeric nutrient criteria. Dodds and Welch (2000) discuss the difficulties in establishing nutrient criteria in streams and suggest that among, other things, co-limitation of nitrogen and phosphorus is prevalent in US streams. Co-limitation, the interaction of TN and TP, was not considered in the development of numeric nutrient criteria nor was there an attempt to establish the limiting nutrient. Dodds and Welch suggest estimates of system metabolism are needed. They suggest statistical distribution approaches should be considered and predictive models be developed, such as linking nutrient concentrations to benthic algal biomass in streams. These authors also suggest human health criteria for nutrient in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3288Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams streams as potential criteria in the absence of dose response relationships in the instream biota. Rosemond et. al. (2001) predicted algal biomass as a function of physical and chemical parameters in North Georgia streams and found that soluble reactive phosphorus, substrate particle size and dissolved oxygen concentrations predicted the majority of the variation in their data. However, soluble reactive phosphorus was correlated with fine particles and sedimentation such that increased algal biomass due to increased phosphorus was offset by increased small particles which attenuated light available to the algae. The complexities of developing effective numeric nutrient criteria relies not only on the estimation of the number itself but in having a flexible implementation strategy that allows for the recognition of the inherent differences among streams in their response to nutrient inputs. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.083

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners The reference approach used to develop the NNC for streams relied on a reference site approach developed by FDEP. The FDEP approach to determine reference sites for Florida streams was based on the development of a Stream Condition Index. FDEP's Stream Condition Index approach was specifically designed and rigorously evaluated to establish reference streams based on an SCI threshold value. These "reference" streams are then categorized as meeting their full aquatic life uses. EPA used streams that achieved the threshold SCI value as the reference streams so long as they were not listed as impaired based on FDEP's 303(d) evaluation for nutrients or dissolved oxygen. The location for EPA stream reference sites was taken from FDEP's SCI development document (Fore et al., 2007) and can be seen in Figure 4. Clearly, the majority of these reference streams are in the Peninsula and Panhandle regions with only two sites in the Bone Valley and very few overall in southwest Florida. EPA used the distribution statistics for the reference sites they identified by collating existing nutrient data in these streams, calculating annual average TN and TP concentrations and generating distributional statistics of the log transformed annual averages. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. EPA reference site locations for streams based on FDEP's Stream Condition Index. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1359-1.001.006

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition For streams, neither the State of Florida nor EPA could identify specific thresholds for establishing numeric TP and TN criteria due to the relative lack of a dose-response relationship. Absent such a relationship, EPA has proposed a reference site approach that is likely to result in arbitrary and unnecessary regulatory actions. EPA cannot show that its proposed numeric criteria are "necessary to protect [designated] uses" because it cannoteven 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3289Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams demonstrate that its proposed numeric criteria are based on "sound scientific rationale" or "scientifically defensible methods." In fact, because EPA has not identified the threshold level of nutrients required by a water body for use attainment, 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 1361-1.001.006

Author Name: * * Organization: North Carolina Division of Water Quality

- The NCDWQ requests clarification on the reference site approach applied to the waters of Florida. The US EPA's approach for determining applicable reference conditions varied among water body types making it difficult to determine the proper definition of a reference site. The US EPA's current approach seems to deviate from the original EPA guidance on determining adequate reference sites. Does EPA plan to revise its reference site guidance ( http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/ecoregions/rivers/rivers_9.pdf ) based on this Florida action? [References: EPA -HQ-OW-2009-0596, FRL-9105-1, Section 2 (c), p. 4181; EPA 822-B-00-019] 

# Comment ID 1362-1.001.004

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute B. Criteria for Rivers and Streams Neither EPA nor the state of Florida could establish a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and algal growth in Florida rivers and streams. This weakness should lead EPA to the conclusion that it is not possible to establish scientifically defensible regional criteria which means narrative standards are appropriate, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b). Instead, EPA is proposing criteria based on the reference approach (identifying unimpaired waters and establishing nutrient criteria based on the levels found in those waters). By establishing criteria for rivers and streams without any consideration of cause- and-effect or consideration of an impairment threshold, EPA has proposed criteria that are not necessary to protect designated uses. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.005

Author Name: Waters D.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3290Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works If EPA insists on deriving criteria based on descriptive statistics, then rather than basing the criteria on a statistical distribution from unimpaired waterbodies, EPA should base the criteria on a statistical distribution from impaired waterbodies, such as the 1st or 5th percentile of waterbodies impaired for nutrients. The compliance criteria should be that the five-year median value of TN, TP, or chlorophyll a should not exceed the 5th percentile concentration of the verified impaired sites based on at least 30 independent samples. A factor of safety could be added by setting the criteria at a given percentage of a low percentile value for impaired waterways, such as 95% of the 5th percentile of impaired waterways. The value could also be the average of the 99th percentile for the waterways determined not to be impaired and the 1st percentile of the waterways determined to be impaired as long as there is not significant overlap in the nutrient concentrations of the impaired and unimpaired waterways. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.012

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works p.78-80 Since EPA could not demonstrate a strong correlation between biological response indicators (SCI Index or chlorophyll a) and nutrient concentrations (Total N and Total P) why is EPA convinced that there is a causal relationship between these variables for the area of interest? The data suggest that there is at least one unconsidered parameter that has a strong effect on the production of chlorophyll a, and unless this parameter is identified, even if numeric nutrient criteria are implemented, they may be ineffective at preventing algae blooms because the criteria do not take this other parameter into account. There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that a causal relationship exists between total nitrogen and total phosphorus and chlorophyll a based on the data that EPA presents in this proposed rule. Only biologically available forms of N and P function as nutrients - ammonia, nitrate/nitrite phosphate/orthophosphate and dissolved P. Large loads of organically-bound nitrogen could cause algae blooms downstream as it converts to ammonia but not in-stream where it enters the initial waterway. An upstream reach can be a source of the nutrients that impair downstream without the upstream reach being impaired. There is a risk that if the standard is only for total N and total P and does not consider the differing ecological effects of the different forms of nitrogen and phosphorus that a waterway could meet the numeric standard but actually be impaired for nutrients. EPA's current proposed standard for total nitrogen is 1.6 mg/L. However, the current Miami-Dade County standard for ammonia in fresh surface water is 0.5 mg/L. The proposed numeric nutrient criterion for total N may not protect a waterway if all or half of the N is in the form of ammonia. Was EPA able to find a correlation between upstream total N and total P concentrations and downstream chlorophyll a concentrations? EPA also fails to establish the concentration of chlorophyll a that indicates an algae bloom. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.016

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3291Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams p.81 How did FDEP determine which streams were the least disturbed in Florida? Does the SCI score in any way compensate for the presence of exotic or invasive species? Did any nutrient-impaired sites have an SCI score greater than 40? Provide map in the primary document that clearly shows the extent of South Florida for the purposes of this rule. How many nutrient-impaired sites were removed? Where were the remaining sites located? 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.018

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities 6. Many factors affect the biological health of a stream besides nutrient concentrations. These factors include water velocity, sediment characteristics, sunlight (degree of shading), the extent of development in the watershed, the presence of riparian buffers, color, pH, temperature, and biological community structure. The specific combination of these confounding factors that exists in each waterbody is unique, and to a greater or lesser extent result in nutrient loads affecting each waterbody differently. Appropriate nutrient limits will vary by watershed, stream reach, and season, yet the current rule does not take this into account. Therefore, EPA's proposed statistical "reference stream" methodology is fundamentally flawed. Only a site-specific analysis to determine doseresponse causal links between nutrients and designated use impairment is appropriate and scientifically defensible. 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.019

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities 7. Numeric nutrient limits presume the impairment of a water body when the in-stream nutrient concentrations exceed the stated criteria without proof that one exists. 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.020

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities 8. The statistical approach used to set the numeric criteria guarantees that a percentage of all waterbodies will be found impaired regardless of the current condition of the waterbody making these criteria arbitrary and oversimplified. This will squander limited resources to correct impairments or to obtain site-specific alternative criteria for impairments that do not exist. 

# Comment ID 1372-1.001.008

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3292Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Phillips L. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Attorneys at Law on behalf of United States Sugar Corporation (USSC) B. EPA Fails to Comply with its Own Technical Guidance in Deriving the Nutrient Rule In applying the reference site approach, EPA failed to comply with many of its own guidance memorandums on how to properly derive numeric water quality standards. The reference site approach involves identifying a reference water body that is unimpacted or biologically healthy. EPA admits that the reference site approach requires using similar class water bodies to develop a reference base. Once a reference base is developed, EPA states that it is critical to have a causal link between the numeric value and a biological response in the water body. [EPA, Technical Guidance Manual, Rivers and Streams, July 2000]. In this Rule, however, EPA used very few canals in south Florida as a reference or benchmark, and provided no assessment or analysis of the expected biological response in south Florida canals. EPA, instead, simplistically infers the biological response to nutrients. This approach fails to comply with EPA's own technical guidance documents on the proper and scientifically defensible manner in which to set numeric nutrient criteria. In its 2000 Technical Guidance Manual for Nutrient Criteria in Rivers and Streams, EPA clearly states that water bodies should be grouped and classified together to aid in setting criteria for streams that have specific characteristics. EPA prescribes classifying the streams using a two phased approach. (EPA used its stream methodology to derive its canal values in the Nutrient Rule). EPA also supports and admits that causal or predictive relationships between nutrients and biomass are required to identify the critical or threshold concentrations that produce nuisance algal biomass. (EPA, Technical Guidance, Rivers and Streams, July 2000, pg 76, emphasis added]. Clearly, in this document, a causal link between nutrients and its impact to a water body was a fundamental part of setting numeric nutrient criteria according to EPA. As recently as 2007, EPA updated its 1998 National Nutrient Strategy Document, once again supporting a causal link when establishing numeric nutrient criteria. Notably, EPA states, To be effective, nutrient criteria should address causal (both nitrogen and phosphorus) and response (chlorophyll-a and transparency) variables for all waters that contribute nutrient loadings to our waterways. EPA encourages the adoption of standards for all four parameters because of the interrelationships between these parameters and its experience showing that controlling both nitrogen and phosphorus is important to successfully combating nutrient pollution in all waters. EPA Letter re Nutrient Strategy, dated May 25, 2007. In the Nutrient Rule, EPA has wholly abandoned the above causal link policy, in favor of setting numeric values with no correlation or understanding of its impact to the water body. EPA's approach in the Nutrient Rule is contrary to the above cited guidance documents as well as other guidance documents contained in our Joint Submittal to the Administrative Record. As acknowledged by EPA, the physical and specific characteristics of a water body must be accounted for and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3293Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams analyzed when setting numeric water quality criteria. EPA failed to do so here. If EPA chooses to maintain the reference site approach, EPA must reassess its methodology to account for variability and a causal link to the biological impairment. To do otherwise is counter to previous EPA guidance. The nutrient criteria for south Florida, and the EAA in particular, should be based on site specific information and data, if EPA expects to promulgate a rule that is scientifically defensible and not arbitrary and capricious. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.020

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Dose-response relationships in streams were very weak. This indicates that reducing nutrient levels would not result in improved biological response. As stated by EPA "relationships between nutrients and biological response parameters in rivers and streams were affected by many factors that made derivation of a quantitative relationship between chlorophyll a levels and nutrients difficult to establish." 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.026

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Overall, the proposal is overly simplistic. FDEP's extensive efforts led to the conclusion that stream water quality is complex and dependent on many variables. The data showed significant variability in nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in the minimally disturbed streams without any response in the stream biology. If the connection between nutrients and biology cannot be established, EPA's proposal for streams could also shift focus away from effective water quality improvement projects and programs. 

# Comment ID 1443-1.001.010

Author Name: * * Organization: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control We believe that the EPA's reference approach in determining Florida's proposed nutrient standards excludes the fact that nutrients are not like other pollutants, toxics specifically, and does not include the basic tenet that nutrients are essential to a balanced indigenous aquatic community of flora and fauna. Unlike toxics, nutrients do not follow the typical linear dose-response curve associated with toxic thresholds which can then be interpreted to a specific magnitude, duration, and frequency for the values selected to protect and maintain the aquatic life and provide for a balanced indigenous population. Nutrients exert their adverse aquatic life effects through increased algal growth which can lead to changes in water chemistry (i.e., low dissolved oxygen, higher pH, etc.) or the algal community composition, but these effects occur only in the presence of other critical factors such as sunlight, optimal substrate, flow,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3294Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams temperature, and water chemistry. It is this combination of multiple factors that are so site-specific that make it very difficult to determine what are the correct values to select and for what parameters and for what time period. We believe the EPA has not successfully defended their approach in Florida and should reconsider reviewing how to incorporate a weight-of-evidence approach for determination of use impairment and the extent of use impairment with regard to assessment of the biological condition of the waterbody and at what level we determine that the uses are not attained. 

# Comment ID 1445-1.001.007

Author Name: Lewis T. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts III. The Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria was Arbitrarily Derived
i. EPA 's Reference Site Selection was Arbitrary EPA's method for selecting reference sites for deriving numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters, which selected sites that passed the Stream Condition Index ("SCI") but excluded sites that were listed impaired for nutrients or dissolved oxygen, is arbitrary and not based on sound science. EPA's approach does not account for, and in fact excludes, the full range of variability of Florida's surface waters and it assumes a relationship between the SCI and nutrient levels. As stated above, no relationship between biological responses and nutrient concentrations has been established or demonstrated. With regard to the variability of surface waters, the exclusion of waters that are listed as impaired due to dissolved oxygen arbitrarily excludes naturally low oxygen systems and artificially results in overly protective criteria. Florida's surface waters are exposed to subtropical climates and cause many to originate in low oxygen environments. Depressed oxygen is therefore a natural phenomenon in Florida's flowing waters especially with flowing waters associated with wetland systems. These systems tend to have elevated nitrogen due to the higher organic loading that is a natural component of these systems. By automatically excluding those waters from the reference site selection, EPA is dismissing and failing to take into account naturally occurring nutrient levels. Essentially, EPA is artificially and arbitrarily narrowing the reference site selection pool and failing to consider a full range of natural variability that exists within Florida's flowing waters. As a result EPA's criteria are overly protective and arbitrary. EPA has failed to establish a link between nutrient concentrations and low dissolved oxygen therefore, it is scientifically unsound to exclude waters from reference site selection based on dissolved oxygen. 

# Comment ID 1445-1.001.024

Author Name: Lewis T. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts In order for numeric nutrient criteria to recognize in-stream biological conditions, there must first be a dose-response relationship between nutrients and adverse biological effects in streams. EPA acknowledged this basic principal in its

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3295Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams guidance documents, noting that the most comprehensive and scientifically defensible approach to developing numeric nutrient critical is to relate nutrient concentrations to dependably measured biological responses that should be described by a model. Potential relationships between nutrients and biological responses were analyzed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") and by EPA. With the exception of nitrate in clear streams, the results of the assessments were that there is no relationship between biological response variables and nutrient concentrations. Therefore, controlling in-stream nutrient levels does not control in-stream biological responses. Consequently, there are other factors that must be first addressed in order to control biological responses such as habitat, hydrology, and color. Elevating nutrients as the primary controlling factor for the allowance of the designated use and biology is not supported by the science and is thus arbitrary and unnecessary regulatory action that will only result in a futile effort costing billions of dollars. It is therefore, recommended that EPA determine what are the primary causes of impairment and establish criteria for those factors. It is those controlling factors that first influence biologicalresponses before nutrients manifest themselves. Because EPA has acknowledged that there is no direct doseresponse relationship between nutrients and in-stream biological health, it can only be assumed that EPA is going forward in the development of in-stream criteria to protect the downstream conditions of lakes and estuaries. Downstream protection of lakes and estuaries is already addressed by the Total Maximum Daily Loads program whereby an impaired lake and estuary is protected by establishing nutrient load allocations for all upstream waters including flowing waters and canals. Consequently, the development of in-stream nutrient criteria for flowing waters and canals is not necessary for downstream protection. 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.004

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. 2. The proposed stream standards U.S. EPA (2010a, pp. 4182-4183) defines streams as free-flowing, predominantly fresh surface water in a defined channel, including "rivers, creeks, branches, canals (outside south Florida), freshwater sloughs, and other similar water bodies." Nutrient (phosphorus, P and nitrogen, N) over-enrichment from anthropogenic sources has degraded the water quality of many streams and rivers worldwide (e.g. Basu and Pick 1995, 1996; Van Nieuwenhuyse and Jones 1996, Wetzel 2001). There is strong precedent for use of biological data to support stressor-response criteria derivation, and setting river nutrient criteria will be a major step forward in order to protect and restore Florida streams from the detrimental impacts of eutrophication. U.S. EPA (2010a, p. 4192) proposed in-stream TN and TP criteria for Class I and Class III streams in four Nutrient Watershed Regions of Florida. These concentrations, as for lakes, are to be annual geometric means that should not be exceeded more than once in a three-year period; in addition, the long-term average of annual geometric mean values should not exceed these criteria. The four regions and criteria are as follows: Panhandle (824 ug TN/L, 43 ug TP/L) - Perdido Bay, Pensacola Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, and St. Andrew Bay watersheds; Bone Valley (1,798 ug TN/L, 739 ug TP/L) - Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor watersheds; Peninsula (1,205 ug TN/L, 107 ug TP/L) - Waccasassa Coastal Drainage Area,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3296Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Withlacoochee Coastal Drainage Area, Crystal/Pithlachascotee Coastal Drainage Area, Indian River, Caloosahatchee River, St. Lucie, Kissimmee River, St. John's River, Daytona/St. Augustine Coastal Drainage Area, Nassau Coastal Drainage Area, and St. Mary's River watersheds; and North Central Region (1,479 ug TN/L, 359 ug TP/L) - Suwannee River watershed. U.S. EPA's (2010a) draft criteria for Florida streams address the need to establish standards, although the proposed criteria appear to be lenient in comparison to the criteria recommended by U.S. EPA (2000) for Ecoregion XII, which includes much of Florida as well as parts of Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi. The Ecoregion XII recommended criteria (900 ug TN/L and 40 ug TP/L) were based on the 25th percentile of data for all streams. In contrast, U.S. EPA's (2010a) draft criteria were developed specifically considering a set of reference streams in Florida. The draft criteria for the Florida Panhandle are similar to the U.S. EPA (2000) stream criteria for Ecoregion XII. While the draft criteria for Florida's other three Nutrient Watershed Regions are higher than those recommended for Ecoregion XII, they do provide an approximation of TN and TP levels that clearly should be avoided. U.S. EPA's (2000) guidance for deriving nutrient criteria was based upon the premise that aquatic life use is protected when nutrient concentrations are similar to reference or "minimally impacted" conditions. U.S. EPA (2010a) used the nitrogen and phosphorus levels in waters thought to be healthy to generate different TN and TP standards for the four Nutrient Watershed Regions. The agency first assembled all FDEP data with Stream Condition Index (SCI) scores of 40 or higher. Although an imperfect measure, these SCI scores do reflect the conditions existing for aquatic life and higher water quality. U.S. EPA (2010a, p.4194) then screened sites with SCI scores of 40 or higher to exclude those sites that were listed on Florida's 303(d) as impaired for nutrients or dissolved oxygen. U.S. EPA (2010a,b) also considered effectiveness for protecting downstream lakes for designated uses. While this important effort will advance protection of Florida streams, the following concerns should be addressed:


# Comment ID 1464-2.001.028

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. In future reviews of the stream nutrient standards, relationships between nutrients (TN, TP) and various response variables should continue to be evaluated to strengthen the nutrient criteria compliance assessment - Both U.S. EPA (2010a, e.g. p.4194) and FDEP (2009a,b) were unable to demonstrate strong relationships between biological response indicators (SCIs based on macroinvertebrates, suspended algal chlorophyll a, periphyton biomass) and nutrients (TN, TP). Yet, a wealth of information available on stream ecosystems worldwide has shown positive effects. There is strong precedent for statistically significant relationships between nutrient enrichment and algal biomass, bacterial productivity, biochemical oxygen demand, and various fish and macroinvertebrate indices in many stream ecosystems (e.g. Van Nieuwenhuyse and Jones 1996, Dodds et al. (1998), Miltner and Rankin 1998, Biggs 2000, Heiskary and Markus 2003, Dodds 2006, Mallin et al. 2006, Wigel and Robertson 2007). This information provides independent support for the draft stream criteria. There is also precedent for statistically significant relationships between nutrient concentrations and response variables in Florida streams, based on FDEP data (Stevenson and Wang 2001; see below).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3297Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

U.S. EPA (2010a) and FDEP (2009a,b) used FDEP data for their analyses. FDEP (2009a) described an "exhaustive number" of statistical analyses of field data to assess relationships correlation between SCIs and nutrients. While the statistical analyses may have been exhaustive, the number of data points per stream and per region that were considered in FDEP's analysis should be clarified. There appear to have been relatively few data points for Bone Valley (FDEP 2010a), for example, and the dataset for the four Nutrient Watershed Regions should be clearly described. If datasets for some response parameters and some regions were sparse (e.g., Bone Valley), then it would have been difficult to detect relationships between SCIs and nutrients, and between other response variables and nutrients. In such cases the sampling frequency should be increased, and additional studies should be conducted to more rigorously assess these relationships. Weak correlation or lack of correlation between SCIs or other response variables and nutrient concentrations may also have resulted because of a narrow concentration range. For example, U.S. EPA (2010a, p. 4187) described FDEP as having presented an analysis of data for clear acidic lakes that showed lack of correlation between an index of benthic macroinvertebrate health and chlorophyll a levels in the range of 5-10 ug/L. As U.S. EPA (2010a, p.4187) pointed out, within such a small range of chlorophyll a, "it is not surprising that a correlation with an indicator responsive to numerous aspects of natural conditions and stressors such as benthic macroinvertebrate health would not exhibit a clear statistical relationship." FDEP (2009b, Chapter 3, p.36) states that it elected not to consider stream periphytic diatom indices because pH, conductivity, and color strongly influence the abundance of periphytic diatoms and these variables were considered to "confound the relationship between periphyton community response to human disturbance, including nutrient enrichment effects." However, algal abundance in aquatic ecosystems (lakes, streams, etc.) typically is influenced by multiple variables (Harris 1986, Wetzel 2001), and various statistical analyses can be used to test appropriately for relationships between algal abundance and certain variables (e.g. nutrients) under such conditions. FDEP (2009b, Chapter 3) asserted that "[T]he periphyton community appears to respond more strongly to pH and conductivity than to independent measures of human disturbance" (p.39). Straightforward analyses to assess statistical relationships between periphytic diatoms and nutrients were not included in the analysis presented in Chapter 3. FDEP (2009b, Chapter 6) included an analysis of rapid periphyton survey data, but FDEP (2009b, p.90) acknowledged that data limitations prevented analysis by region, which could have obscured relationships. The agency's analysis did show that "primarily total phosphorus in the panhandle and nitrogen in the peninsula has a significant negative effect on periphyton composition in Florida streams." FDEP (2009b, p.90) also acknowledged that although it was unable to identify specific thresholds for establishing numeric nutrient criteria, "the analyses provide further support for the need for nutrient criteria in order to protect against adverse biological effects." Neither FDEP (2009b) nor U.S. EPA (2010a) mentioned a report about Florida streams that was submitted to FDEP in 2001, the lead author of which was renowned stream ecologist and diatom specialist Dr. R. Jan Stevenson (Stevenson and Wang 2001). The summary of that report (p.2) stated: "Data from Florida Department of Environmental Protection were analyzed to develop algal indicators of trophic status....Algal biomass and algal growth potential, an inverse indicator of nutrient limitation, were positively [significantly] related to nutrient concentrations in the Florida streams sampled. Most measures of [algal] species responses were best correlated with a multimetric index composed of 5 measures of nutrient concentrations (NH3, NOx, TN, PO4, and TP) and 3 measures of algal biomass responses (periphyton and plankton chlorophyll a and assays of algal growth potential)....A [diatom] species indicator of trophic status based on categorical autecological

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3298Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams characteristics of diatoms species developed in Europe, streams of the mid-Atlantic region of the US, and Florida was highly correlated to nutrient concentrations and algal biomass responses....." Thus, independent analysis of stream data from FDEP revealed that algal biomass in Florida streams is significantly related to nutrient concentrations (Stevenson and Wang 2001, p.12). These respected specialists reported significant positive correlations between algal biomass and phosphate concentration; a significant negative correlation between algal biomass and watercolumn N:P ratios; and significant relationships between algal growth response and phosphate concentrations, water-column N:P ratios, total phosphorus concentrations, and nitrate concentrations. The Stevenson and Wang (2001) study provides independent support of the draft stream nutrient criteria. U.S. EPA (2010a, p.4194) stated that it "could not confidently predict a specific biological response for an individual stream solely from the associated stream measurements of TN or TP concentration." Again, if the data for a given individual stream were sparse, or if there was a narrow range of nutrient concentrations in the dataset, such data would be inadequate to examine cause-and-effect relationships from nutrient enrichment. In the future, refinements can be added through examining the FDEP data more thoroughly for relationships between nutrients and response variables, including consideration of the Stevenson and Wang (2001) study and approaches therein, so that response variables can be included to strengthen the stream nutrient criteria and compliance assessment.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3299Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1473-1.001.006

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute For streams, neither EPA nor the State of Florida could establish a cause-and-effect relationship between nutrients and algal growth in Florida streams. This fact should lead EPA to the conclusion that it is not possible to establish scientifically defensible criteria, which means narrative standards are appropriate, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b). Instead, EPA is proposing criteria based on the reference approach. By establishing criteria for streams without any consideration of cause-and-effect or consideration of an impairment threshold, EPA's has proposed criteria that are not necessary to protect designated uses. 

# Comment ID 1473-1.001.015

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute For streams, neither the state of Florida nor EPA could identify specific thresholds for establishing numeric TP and TN criteria due to the relative lack of a dose-response relationship. Given that lack of a dose-response relationship, the reference site approach proposed by EPA is likely to result in arbitrary and unnecessary regulatory actions. EPA cannot show that its proposed numeric criteria are "necessary to protect [designated] uses" because it cannoteven 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, because 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 1473-1.001.020

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3300Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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 (BPJ) 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 attempt to 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, 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. As a result, EPA's criteria fail to follow EPA's own guidance. Accordingly, we respectfully submit 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 1474-1.001.010

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute D. Stream Standards EPA's approach to the development of stream standards differed significantly from the approach used to set lake criteria. The agency attempted to find a "cause-and-effect" relationship between stream impairment and nutrient levels using several different approaches, but was unable to demonstrate such a relationship. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4193. The lack of a demonstrable "cause-andeffect" relationship was also confirmed by the State of Florida. EPA has acknowledged that numerous site-specific factors influence whether or not nutrients will cause adverse impacts in streams. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4192-95. EPA's SAB has indicated that when a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be established, it may not be possible to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3301Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams establish scientifically defensible stream standards. See SAB Report at 11, 24. Rather, narrative criteria approaches will be necessary to properly determine whether and how nutrient regulation for such waters should occur. EPA itself acknowledged that a narrative approach may be the most appropriate method for regulating nutrients when a consistent impairment relationship cannot be demonstrated. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4181. Rather than heed its own advice and allow Florida to continue using a narrative criteria approach, EPA resorted to an ecoregional approach for criteria derivation. That approach does not attempt to establish any cause-and-effect relationship and is not based on regulating nutrients at a specific impairment threshold. Rather, the approach looks a nutrient levels in "unimpacted" or "pristine" area and presumes that the level of nutrients occurring in those waters is necessary to assure protection in all other streams in that ecoregion. The obvious fallacy in that approach is that the assumption used (elevated nutrient levels in streams always cause impairment) was already proven incorrect by the agency's own analysis that confirmed there is no such stressor-response to nutrients in Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.028

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute For streams, neither the State of Florida nor EPA could identify specific thresholds for establishing numeric TP and TN criteria due to the relative lack of a dose-response relationship. Given that lack of a dose-response relationship, the reference site approach proposed by EPA is likely to result in arbitrary and unnecessary regulatory actions. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.119

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute EPA justifies establishing nutrient criteria for streams, notwithstanding the lack of a stressor-response relationship by arguing that "substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site-by-site, segment-by-segment basis" will be no longer be necessary. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4192, 4194. However, that rationale ignores the substantial resources that would be expended to meet criteria that do not take into account "inevitable and expected stream variability," as well as the time and expenditure of scarce resources needed to develop site specific alternative criteria, variances, and other implementation measures that are intended to provide relief from inappropriate criteria. This rationale also ignores the fact that establishing criteria using an approach that does not take into account that variability will result in criteria that are not necessary to meet designated uses. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.120

Author Name: Herz W.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3302Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: The Fertilizer Institute The following briefly outlines the major scientific deficiencies with EPA's proposed approach to stream criteria derivation:
1. EPA's proposed stream criteria are not based on a cause/effect demonstration or impairment threshold. 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 15, 16, 21; SAB Report at 6. Once the relationship between the pollutant and the adverse effect is properly documented, the impairment threshold is identified and the acceptable pollutant concentration is selected (based on the cause-and-effect relationship) that will preclude the impairment from occurring. EPA's approach fails to provide any objective information on any of these issues. To the degree an assessment has been conducted, it demonstrates that a consistent cause-and-effect relationship between nutrients and algal growth in Florida streams does not exist, thus precluding numeric criteria derivation. Finally, as no impairment threshold or impairment indicator has been selected for streams (nutrients are the potential causative agents, not the ecological response variable), it is not possible to objectively determine what waters are impaired under EPA's proposal. Lacking this critical criteria component, there is no way of knowing whether nutrient reductions have produced beneficial or possibly detrimental responses. These deficiencies in criteria derivation are glaring and require that the proposed values be withdrawn. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.122

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 3. EPA failed to evaluate appropriate ecological thresholds and the scope of impacts. As noted in the earlier discussion, the proposed stream criteria lack an identifiable ecological impairment threshold. Consequently, there is no information presented showing what is expected to occur in streams if the numeric nutrient criteria are exceeded. Absent such information it is not possible to derive scientifically defensible criteria. National Guidelines at 5, 57. Why EPA was suddenly unable to identify a plant growth impairment level is not known, but needs to be explained by the Agency. In prior federal TMDLs EPA has identified the "safe" level of plant growth. For example, in several recently issued Pennsylvania TMDLs, EPA concluded that periphyton growth up to 200 mg/m2 on a growing season basis should not be considered an impairment. EPA, Response to Comments for Goose, Indian and Paxton Creeks TMDLs, June 30, 2008. It is not apparent why EPA was capable of identifying a plant impairment threshold in those cases, but was unable to do so for the State of Florida. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.124

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3303Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

5. Regulating nutrient levels in colored streams lacks any technical support. Although EPA recognizes that light is a critical factor affecting the ability of plant to grow, regardless of the amount of nutrients present, EPA failed to account for this factor in setting stream criteria. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4192; TSD at 3-1. Florida has colored streams, just has it has colored lakes. In each setting the effect is the same - reduced plant growth. EPA failure to account for this important factor is setting stream standards was not defended on any scientific basis. EPA ignored this factor because it would have required the agency to determine what constitutes a plant growth impairment threshold for streams. Nonetheless, to regulate nutrients at the same level in colored versus clear streams is plainly not a scientifically defensible action based upon EPA's acknowledgement that this is a critical factor controlling plant growth. EPA analysis of plant growth data contained in Appendix B-11, confirmed the strong impact stream color had on plant growth. EPA recommended splitting streams into three color categories (<40, 40-100, >100 PCU) to more accurately reflect the degree to which color impacted plant growth. TSD, Appendix B-11, at 4. EPA's analysis of the data considering color confirmed that, in colored streams, "nutrients were not related to benthic algal biomass accumulation...." Id. Based on this conclusion, there is no technical basis to limit nutrient concentrations in such waters.

Likewise, only sites with less than 40 percent canopy were considered for analysis because of light limitations occurring above this value. Id. EPA's failure to consider factors acknowledged to control plant growth, regardless of the degree of nutrients present, is not scientifically defensible. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.126

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 7. EPA's proposal is not based on a sound scientific approach. In conclusion, it is apparent that EPA's proposed uniform stream objectives are broadly overprotective, fail to conform to accepted methods of criteria derivation and thus improperly apply the State's narrative standard. EPA's proposed criteria are based on assumptions that are directly refuted by EPA's limited technical analyses of stressor response. The proposed approach considered none of the relevant physical factors that control whether or not nutrients may cause impairment in a stream environment. The approach does not even require that a nutrient related impairment be confirmed prior to application of stringent instream objectives. Criteria must be based on some objective impairment threshold assessment coupled with a "cause-and-effect" analysis to be meaningful in a regulatory context. Neither of these critical components was considered by EPA in setting the proposed criteria. Absent some procedure to (1) confirm that nutrients are actually causing impairment and (2) some way of assessing what nutrients or physical factors need to be remedies to address the issue, EPA has created a program based on sheer guesswork and assumed impacts. Such an approach will result in broad over-regulating nutrient levels in streams because the federal approach is divorced from cause-and-effect. Criteria derivation methods under the Clean Water Act, however, do not allow such approaches to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed approach must be withdrawn and a narrative criteria approach implemented in its place since defensible numeric criteria of general applicability cannot be derived by EPA's own admission.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3304Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1474-1.001.127

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 8. Conclusions regarding EPA's proposed criteria for streams. Neither EPA nor the State of Florida could establish a cause-and-effect relationship for nutrients in Florida streams. EPA states: "Whereas, there are data available for water column chlorophyll a (phytoplankton) and algal thickness on various substances (periphyton) for certain types of streams in Florida, there are currently no available approaches to interpret these data to infer scientifically supported thresholds for these nutrient-specific response variables in Florida streams." 75 Fed. Reg. at 4193. This fact should lead EPA to the conclusion that it is not possible to establish scientifically defensible criteria so narrative standards are appropriate, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b). Instead, EPA is proposing criteria based on the reference approach. By establishing criteria for streams without any consideration of cause-and-effect or consideration of an impairment threshold, EPA's has proposed criteria that are not necessary to protect designated uses, contravening 40 C.F.R. 131.2. EPA's use of reference streams also ignores EPA guidance that requires EPA to consider site-specific factors that control whether or not excessive plant growth will occur. Again, this approach leads to the application of criteria that are not necessary to protect designated uses, contravening 40 C.F.R. 131.2.



# Comment ID 1474-1.001.131

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute This result also is not permissible under the Clean Water Act, which requires the development of criteria necessary to protect designated uses. 40 C.F.R. 131.2. EPA cannot assume impairment and then set a criterion to protect against that assumption. The possibility of obtaining a SSAC does not overcome this flaw. Under the SSAC process, the regulated community has the burden to demonstrate that waters are not impaired or that a particular criterion is protective of a designated use. However, the Clean Water Act places the burden on EPA or the authorized to demonstrate that waters are, in fact, impaired and that a criterion is, in fact, necessary to protect a use 

# Comment ID 1476-1.001.006

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3305Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Streams and Rivers: With no scientifically established relationship between nutrient levels and biological response, coupled with unreliable scientific results, utilization of the reference approach raises concerns. o Many other factors in the stream environment influence biological communities within the water body, and the District recommends a thorough investigation of these factors.



# Comment ID 1476-2.001.007

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District II. South Florida Water Management District Response to USEPA Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria: River and Streams Numerous papers have been published on using landscape classification (e.g., ecoregions, bioregions) to define reference conditions for environmental management. A recent review of published papers over the last 25 years (Hawkins et al. 2010) made the following conclusions with regard to the use of reference sites to set numeric water quality criteria that are applicable to USEPA's proposed numeric criteria for nutrients.[1]
A. USEPA Has Not Adequately Assessed Several Critical Assumptions Necessary to Set Defensible Water Quality Criteria Using a Reference Approach The proposed Nutrient Watershed Regions produced coarse estimates of reference conditions leading to numeric criteria that may not be ecological meaningful. The lack of predictive modeling that links nutrients to a biological response is a major shortcoming (see comment B below). USEPA has not provided evidence to demonstrate that it adequately assessed the natural variability in the data to minimize predictive bias. No analysis has been provided supporting the assertion that the reference data, and the 75th percentile, are an accurate statistic for defining the distribution and natural variability in the data at reference and other sites. The application of this statistic to all sites in the region cannot be assessed with any degree of confidence without this assessment of data variability. Variations intime and space at any particular site may be greater than the variation within the region. Hydrologic variability, day-today, season-to-season, and year-to-year, make the interpretations of criteria exceedances difficult to assess without a large number of measurements taken over a long period of time (see comment E below). [1] FDEPs comments can be found at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/ federal/fdep_comments_streams_criteria.pdf . Cross-references to FDEP draft comments dated March 12, 2010, are provided where applicable.)



# Comment ID 1476-2.001.068

Author Name: Wehle C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3306Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: South Florida Water Management District B. USEPA Has Failed to Demonstrate a Link Between Its Proposed Nutrient Criteria and a Biological Response Dodds and Welch (2000) outlined the many difficulties in setting nutrient criteria in streams, including the multiple management reasons for setting the criteria, the uncertainties associated with biological responses, and the high variability associated with nutrient data collected in streams. Although this white paper is 10 years old, these conclusions are relevant to the criteria proposed by USEPA today. It is necessary that the proposed thresholds (i.e., criteria) have a quantified link to a biological response. Without such a link, there is no basis that reducing nutrients will have a measureable effect on the biota, and could lead to costly and unnecessary controls. Existing water quality criteria (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, metals) use laboratory bioassays to link stressors to biology. Studies of natural systems use modeling to relate stressors to biology as has been done for nutrients and chlorophyll biomass in New Zealand rivers. (Snelder et al., 2004). Such evidence has not been provided for Florida streams. This conclusion was made by FDEP (see FDEP comments D, F, and J) and acknowledged by USEPA in the proposed rule. The natural environment is an uncontrolled experiment with biological conditions affected regionally by geology, climate, and land use. FDEP should be commended for assessing many of these regional patterns by developing specific bioregions for the Stream Condition Index (SCI), Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWR), and the Landscape Development Intensity (LDI) index. However, these tools do not fully explain the high spatial and temporal variability of nutrients in Florida streams. Highly variable flow conditions in streams, compared to lakes, and seasonal changes in macrophyte and periphyton growth make correlations between nutrients and biology (e.g., SCI and component metrics) statistically weak. They may need to be assessed on a site-by-site basis rather than a broad regional basis (see FDEP comment E and Appendices A-C). Both USEPA and FDEP have recognized this limitation and have additionally identified the importance of shade in regulating stream primary production. 

# Comment ID 1477-1.001.011

Author Name: Rudd F. Organization: Florida Engineering Society In addition, the FES has the following more specific concerns regarding EPA's proposed nutrient criteria:

• EPA did not fully acknowledge the basic limitations of use of a "reference approach" which is that no link has been established between criteria and impairment (no "doseresponse" relationship). 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.002

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3307Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams EPA's Application of "Reference Approach" for stream criteria is not appropriate

• EPA did not fully acknowledge basic limitation of "reference approach", that there is no link between criteria and impairment (no "dose-response" relationship) 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.010

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport

• Should require biological validation before listing as impaired and should provide clear SSAC process 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.052

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Second, there should be additional consideration for response variable such as suspended algal biomass or benthic algal biomass (as chl-a) for increasing protection of Florida's rivers and streams from nutrient pollution. Third, a minimum sample size should be specified to ensure a sound assessment of stream conditions by requiring more than four samples per year, including more than one collected in the wet season when nutrient overloading is most prevalent. 

# Comment ID 1483-1.001.006

Author Name: McCrea D. Organization: Pinellas County On the other hand, the County is perplexed as to why an adaptive management method was not implemented in the rivers' calculations. Particularly in light of the fact that EPA wasn't able to develop the scientifically preferred dose/response approach in its rivers calculations, but rather relied on the reference approach,[14] which EPA has recognized in its own technical documents as the less favored and less exact scientific methodology. [15] Nevertheless, EPA implemented the reference approach to the rivers criteria, and found that it could identify exact levels of TP and TN that dictate when a stream or river is impaired.[16] Even though EPA was applying a less sound model to rivers, it improperly assumed that it could in this case establish exact and concrete lines that would separate impaired water bodies from non-impaired water bodies.[17] On its face, EPA's approach to lakes and rivers is backwards. In theory, when one is applying a less sound model, one should allow for a wider range of results to govern the conclusions. EPA finds that when a less exact model is applied in the case of rivers, exact results need to be codified; however, when a more exact model is applied in the case of lakes, more leeway for interpretation in the model's outcomes are supportable.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3308Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

The County can easily understand, in light of the history behind adaptive management and environmental regulation, why the criteria for lakes and rivers are positioned the way they are. EPA has a better model, better science, and a better understanding of how lakes in Florida respond to nutrients. Therefore, EPA finds that it has a defensible position that will allow it to loosen its grip on its front-end controls and enable the criteria to adapt themselves in certain situations where a lake doesn't fit into the established mold. On the other hand, with regards to the rivers, EPA has a less secure and less defensible model. Therefore EPA has chosen to draw distinct lines in the sand because it likely thinks it stands a better chance to survive the legal 'onslaught' under this cover. The endgame here is simple. Due to the structure and nature of our system, where EPA should allow the criteria to adapt to the varying makeup of Florida's rivers, EPA has chosen to establish exact delineations for the criteria. The County postulates that this decision was founded on the following false premises: 1) this approach is more defensible and has a better chance of surviving at the next level; and 2) EPA will dodge the burden of reviewing and/or defending criteria that would later be adapted for a particular river's makeup. Unfortunately, under this approach there is a very good chance that numerous rivers and even lakes, which could be found to be in a biologically healthy state, may nevertheless be classified as impaired. And further down the road, interested parties will be paying to correct these impairments that need not be corrected. [14] Id. at 71-89 [15] See EPA's Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams (Buck et al., 2000), available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria~nutrient/guidance/rivers / [16] Supra note 9 at 7 1-8 1 [17] Id. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.007

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority As states have developed their nutrient criteria plans, they have identified the inability of the reference condition approach to accurately define protective criteria. While the reference condition approach is one of the EPA-approved methods for developing Instream Protection Values, this approach is commonly viewed as the last resort, to be taken only in cases where insufficient site-specific data are available to support more rigorous analyses. Mississippi's Plan for Nutrient Criteria Development (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 2004) states: An effects-based approach is undoubtedly the preferred means to arrive at values that are neither over nor under protective, however, due to our lack of time, resources, etc., the reference condition approach may be used in certain waterbody types. The Nutrient Criteria Development Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 2008) explicitly states that their preferred approach to criteria development is the use of "effect-based criteria", while the reference condition approach will only be used as a "fall-back."

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3309Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The Florida DEP (2010) review of the stream criteria in the Proposed Rule echoes the same point: As specified in EPA's guidance and acknowledged in Florida's Nutrient Criteria Development Plan, the most comprehensive and scientifically defensible approach to developing numeric nutrient criteria is to relate nutrient concentrations to dependably measured adverse biological responses. EPA's own guidance suggests that doseresponse relationships should be described by a model (e.g., trophic state classification, regional predictive model, biocriteria, etc.), which in tum would quantitatively link nutrient concentrations to the relative risk of environmental harm. DEP supports this approach, since it establishes a correlative relationship between nutrients and valued ecological attributes, and is linked to the maintenance of designated uses of waterbodies. (p. 10) 

# Comment ID 1530.001.031

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority V. IF EPA CHOOSES NOT TO ADOPT THE TARGETS FROM TMDLS AS CRITERIA OR ADOPT THE TMDLS AS SSACS, THEN EPA SHOULD REQUIRE CONFIRMATION OF ACTUAL IMPAIRMENT OF A DESIGNATED USE BEFORE A SITE IS CONSIDERED IMPAIRED, RATHER THAN ALLOWING A SITE TO BE DEFINED AS IMPAIRED BASED SOLELY ON NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS The Proposed Rule uses a reference condition approach to define nutrient criteria for streams, because no direct correlation between stream nutrient concentration and biological response could be identified. Because of this lack of correlation, nutrient concentrations that exceed the reference condition-based criteria can only infer the possibility of impairment, they are not a sufficient determination that impairment exists. In fact, FDEP's analysis of Florida stream data show that 35% of impaired Florida streams exceed the criteria in the Proposed Rule more often than the allowable once in three years. This is an unacceptably high level of false positives and, if enacted, will lead to a large number of unimpaired sites being falsely listed as impaired. Requiring nutrients reductions when there is no impairment would be a waste of resources and provide no environmental benefit. Should the reference condition approach in the Proposed Rule be maintained, it should be modified to require confirmation of actual impairment of a designated use (through a response variable such as chlorophyll a) before a site is considered impaired, rather than allowing a site to be defined as impaired based solely on nutrient concentrations. 

# Comment ID 1556-1.001.004

Author Name: Horenstein B. Organization: Tri-TAC 2. Concern that a relationship does not exist between the proposed Florida nutrient standards and biological or other impairments. Tri-TAC's fundamental concern with the approach used to derive the proposed standards for flowing waters in the State

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3310Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams of Florida is that there is no demonstration of a stressor-response relationship. Such a relationship is needed to demonstrate that a reasonable expectation of cause and effect exists between the proposed standards and the desired outcomes. In the proposed State of Florida standards development, USEPA has classified watersheds with substantially different ratios of Total Nitrogen (Total N) and Total Phosporous (Total P) export into four nutrient watershed regions. The biological conditions of streams were evaluated using the stream condition index (SCI), previously applied by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), using benthic macroinvertebrate community composition and taxonomic data. USEPA evaluated but was unable to find a correlation between these biological response indicators and ambient TN and TP concentrations. In the absence of a correlation, however, EPA still used the approach of estimating a distribution of nutrient concentrations from biologically healthy reference streams, and establishing the standards from the 75th percentile of the distribution. The approach does not meaningfully relate elevated nutrient levels to biological impairment. A demonstrated linkage between nutrient levels and biological integrity is missing from the USEPA analysis. The USEPA admits that they did not find a sufficiently strong correlation between biological response indicators (SCI, chlorophyll a, periphyton biomass) and TN or TP concentrations in Florida streams, yet still base their criteria on nutrient distributions within reference streams. The USEPA explained that there may be several reasons for the weak correlation between nutrient stressors and biological response -- the relationship could be confounded by the presence of other stressors (i.e., excessive scour), or because algal biomass accumulation is difficult to characterize in individual streams due to dynamic conditions where biomass fluctuates. The analysis fails to consider or identify other mechanisms that might impair invertebrate diversity, such as ecological factors including light availability, sedimentation, and habitat quality or alteration. Without linking low biological productivity with elevated nutrient levels in the streams where the standards will be implemented, it is tenuous to suggest or imply that limiting nutrient levels to reflect levels present in reference streams will protect beneficial uses Furthermore, Tri-TAC is concerned that the implication is that the proposed standards in Florida will provide various benefits, including improved attainment of biological criteria, control of harmful algal blooms, reduction of fish kills, elimination of hypoxic zones, and resolution of drinking water concerns. For the one benefit that was examined (improved biological condition) in detail, no predictive relationship was identified. For the other benefits, no science was developed to support a connection between the proposed standards and these conditions. In the final analysis, as noted above, the Florida standards are based on a reference stream approach, which provides no definitive connection between the standards and the implied benefits. 

# Comment ID 1615-1.001.012

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Public Works Item IILC(2)(c) - Methodology for Calculating Instream Protection Values: The Nutrient Watershed Region Distribution Method: EPA states on page 80, as did the State of Florida in their independent analysis, "EPA analyzed stressor

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3311Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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 in Florida streams. More specifically, EPA was not able to demonstrate a sufficient strong correlation between the biological response indicators ... and TN or TP concentrations." It should be noted that Florida has approximately one third of all nutrient data in STORET, indicating that if such a relationship were going to be identified, it would most likely happen using Florida data. The relationships were not determined according to EPA which means that control of nutrient content in streams does not control biological response - the very target EPA stated it was seeking in these numeric nutrient criteria. How is it possible, then, to believe that control of nutrient content in streams by use of reference stream nutrients is going to control biological response? 

# Comment ID 1615-1.001.013

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Public Works Item III C(2)(c) - Methodology for Calculating Instream Protection Values: The Nutrient Watershed Region Distribution Method: EPA states that, instead of using reference streams which have little or no anthropogenic impacts, biologically healthy streams (Le., SCI > 40) were used for determination of the thresholds. Even though the use of reference streams may be invalid (see previous comment), identification of reference streams by biological health is better than by least disturbed streams (LDI < 2). 

# Comment ID 1647-1.001.021

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Rivers/Streams Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) as Indicators of Stream Impairment Per NCASI findings, TN and TP concentrations in Florida's flowing waters are not predictive of stream health or impairment attributable to excessive nutrients. The EPA's criteria should be focused on nutrient forms that are bioavailable and thus can, when other site conditions allow, contribute to nutrient-related impairments. A substantial amount of evidence exists showing that only bioavailable forms of nutrients contribute to algal growth, that refractory forms of organic nitrogen and organic phosphorus often comprise a large portion of the TN and TP in flowing waters and point source discharges, and that the conversion of refractory forms of N and P to bioavailable N and P occur at rates that are too low to contribute to the impairment of flowing waters or downstream estuaries. Virtually all scientific studies show that only bioavailable forms of nitrogen and phosphorus contribute to aquatic plant growth that can cause impairment of water bodies. Organic and particulate forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, which comprise a large and often majority fraction of the TN and TP in many flowing waters, generally are not bioavailable. To be useful for water quality management, the criteria should be predicated on variables such as soluble inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus that have a more direct link to the growth of aquatic plants (NCASI 2010).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3312Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1647-1.001.022

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) as Related to Algal Growth The proposed TN and TP criteria for flowing waters are based on the premise that these concentrations explain variability in stream condition and/or algal quantities. The EPA's analysis of TN and TP data for flowing waters provides little or no evidence that TN and TP concentrations are causal to stream condition or algal quantities. Re-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. NCASI analyses (and FDEP/EPA data analyses) show that other water quality and site condition variables (e.g., canopy cover, stream color) are more important than TN and TP with respect to indicating water quality condition (NCASI 2010). 

# Comment ID 1667-1.001.006

Author Name: Gierach D. Organization: CPH Engineers, Inc. and the City of Sanford The EPA proposed stream numeric criteria were developed by two main approaches: (1) dose-response relationship and (2) reference approach. The dose - response relationship is the most desirable approach as it directly relates the nutrient dose with the undesirable biological response. However, both FDEP and EPA did the analysis based on the available data and could not identify the nutrient dose-response thresholds because of the weak statistical correlation between the nutrient and biological response. EPA then applied "reference approach" to establish the numeric criteria. EPA selected the reference sites by solely focusing on whether aquatic life use in the stream is attained without considering if the sites are minimally disturbed. Even though all selected sites have been demonstrated to meet aquatic life use support, EPA used a lower percentile than necessary to set the criteria. 

# Comment ID 1671-1.001.003

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 1) Criteria for the Protection of Streams The overarching issue related to the protection of streams is EPA's failure to account for natural features in the State that affect nutrient concentrations. The influence of the geologic Hawthorne formation on total phosphorus concentrations and the contributions of high levels of organic nitrogen to streams from wetlands are not accounted for in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3313Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the EPA proposal. In evaluating unimpacted, largely natural streams in Florida against the proposed criteria thresholds, those that exceeded the criteria were either located proximal to the Hawthorne formation (a natural phosphorus bearing geologic feature) or dominated by the influence of wetlands as evidenced by the high water color and low dissolved oxygen content. It is illogical to establish criteria that are violated by natural features, and EPA should account for this in their final promulgated criteria to avoid implication of these features as pollutant sources. The Department would also like to caution EPA against viewing occasional nonattainment of the currently adopted dissolved oxygen (DO) standard in Florida waterbodies as an indication of nutrient enrichment or biological harm. Most of our biologically healthy streams and lakes will exhibit low DO events during the course of the year. The Department has collected one years' worth of detailed biological and DO information and is continuing that collection effort with the intent of revising the currently adopted DO criteria to one that is more indicative of what is necessary to protect Florida's aquatic biology. Our attached comments contain some preliminary analysis of that data. Florida's DO criterion is based upon the EPA recommended 304(a) criteria and has not been adjusted to account for all the natural features that define Florida's unique diversity. Alternatively Florida has implemented the criterion, both in a regulatory context and assessment context, to recognize the influence of Florida's wetlands on dissolved oxygen. Our laws and regulations are structured to ensure that our programs do not force actions to correct natural conditions. With that in mind, we encourage EPA to focus more on the designated use attainment of streams as an indication of stream health rather than the DO condition of the stream. It must also be acknowledged that the derivation of stream criteria was not based on a cause effect relationship. This is important as you move towards implementation of the criteria. EPA should acknowledge that attainment of the criteria would provide protection, but at the same time acknowledge that nonattainment of the criteria may not be an indication of designated use impairment. Given that uncertainty, EPA should include III its proposal an allowance for the evaluation of response variables, like chlorophyll a or biological monitoring. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.024

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection B. Comments on Derivation of Criteria
1. Lack of Dose-Response Relationship between Nutrients and Adverse Biological Effects in Streams The DEP's main concern with EPA's application of the "reference approach" for the development of stream nutrient criteria is that EPA did not fully acknowledge the basic limitation of the approach - that the resultant criteria are not linked to impairment. As described in more detail below, DEP recommends that EPA take this fact into account in the application of the methodology. As specified in EPA's guidance and acknowledged in Florida's Nutrient Criteria Development Plan, the most comprehensive and scientifically defensible approach to developing numeric nutrient criteria is to relate nutrientconcentrations to dependably measured adverse biological responses. EPA's own guidance suggests that doseresponse relationships should be described by a model (e.g., trophic state classification, regional predictive model,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3314Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams biocriteria, etc.), which in turn would quantitatively link nutrient concentrations to the relative risk of environmental harm. DEP supports this approach, since it establishes a correlative relationship between nutrients and valued ecological attributes, and is linked to the maintenance of designated uses of waterbodies. Potential relationships between nutrients and biological response measures were analyzed by DEP (and subsequently by EPA) via a variety of statistical techniques, including linear regression, multiple linear regression, non-linear regression, LOESS regression, change point analysis, CART, correlation analysis, and paired variable plots. A complete discussion of the results from these analyses was provided by DEP in Florida's Nutrient Technical Support Document (TSD), and it should be noted that EPA's contractors (Tetra Tech) agreed with the conclusions. With one exception (i.e., nitrate in clear streams), the results of this comprehensive analyses indicated the statistical relationships between the biological response variables and nutrient concentrations were very weak, and therefore, neither DEP nor EPA could identify specific thresholds for establishing numeric TP and TN criteria due to the relative lack of a dose-response relationship. This is extremely important, but it should be acknowledged that objective scientists may reach very different conclusions from these analyses, ranging from: 1) numeric TP and TN criteria are not necessary to protect stream systems in Florida; to 2) if numeric nutrient criteria were established through other methods, such as the reference site approach, additional mechanisms should be included to avoid arbitrary and unnecessary regulatory actions. These mechanisms would include using an upper distribution of the data to establish a threshold and requiring biological validation of nutrient impairments prior to regulatory action. DEP decided that that the latter conclusion above was warranted and further expended a great deal of resources pursuing a "minimally disturbed reference site" approach in streams, with the intent of fully protecting downstream waters, including lakes and estuaries. DEP moved forward with the "minimally disturbed reference site" approach with the logical assertion that nutrient concentrations characteristic of minimally disturbed streams would be inherently protective of downstream waters. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.025

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2. Comments on EPA's Reference Site Selection Process EPA's method for selecting reference sites, which selected sites that passed the Stream Condition Index (SCI) as the primary criterion for reference site selection, and only excluded sites with passing SCIs if they were listed as impaired for nutrients or dissolved oxygen, is too simplistic. DEP supports the use of the SCI in demonstrating that aquatic life use support is attained, and many of EPA's Peer Reviewers were supportive of the SCI as a measure of a healthy, well balanced aquatic community, making them suitable end points for the dose-response analyses:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3315Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

• Peer Reviewer 2 said, "I commend DEP on the development of the SCI. Clearly they spent a lot of time and effort to produce a solid, scientifically defensible product. It is an excellent tool for assessing benthic health for general pollution impacts (organic, chemical stresses, and sedimentation problems)."

• Peer Reviewer 3 stated, "Biological indices have been widely and successfully employed. The SCI and the LVI for Florida were clearly developed using well-established and sound methodologies, were convincingly demonstrated to be sensitive to environmental gradients and anthropogenic disturbance, and are therefore good indicators of aquatic life use attainment."

• Peer Reviewer 4 commented, "The SCI and the LVI appear to be sensitive to human disturbance making them useful reaching conclusions about use impairment. Reliability was tested by having experts evaluate biological condition without foreknowledge of the SCI or LVI scores. There was very good correspondence between the expert assessments and the actual index scores. Each index (SCI and LVI) was developed to be responsive to human disturbance as defined by a human disturbance gradient (HDG). Selecting the 2.5th percentile as the threshold for impairment would seem to be the quantification of a policy decision regarding use attainment. Yet, it suggests that 2.5% of all reference sites would be considered impaired. Given the very rigorous screening procedures used to select the benchmark nutrient reference sites, the threshold for use attainment is set quite high. "

• Peer Reviewer 5 stated, "Through multiple lines of evidence, fundamental ecological concepts, expert opinion, reference conditions, SCI ratings were established which indicated impairment. The methodology for establishing the rating scale and determining the threshold for impairment appeared sound and well-founded. Similar to the SCI, the Lake Vegetation Index incorporates four metrics that together give an indication of the health of the water body compared to a reference scale. A calibration of the LVI to BCG similar to that done with the SCI was performed with equally encouraging results. The application of the reference site approach is well-justified and appears be based on a methodology that yields statistically valid results. The general interpretation of the highly variable results in the low range of the Human Disturbance Gradient (HDG) is reasonable. Sampling guidance in order to reduce Type 1 errors (false positives) is well constrained and reasonable. Analysis of variability at a site over time reflects the inherent temporal variability that may be expected in the natural world when applying this index. Both the SCI and LVI approaches deliver a robust, standard way of identifying impaired waters for which nutrient criteria should be targeted and that are linked to the BCG used by EPA throughout the country." While DEP (and EPA Peer Reviewers) supports the use of the SCI as a method to demonstrate full support of a healthy, well balanced aquatic community, sites that pass the SCI may also be influenced by anthropogenic nutrient inputs. That is why, in addition to selecting sites that pass the SCI, DEP conducted the intensive site screening process described in the next section. The main shortcoming of EPA's reference site approach (use of SCI alone) is that no demonstration was made that the sites were minimally disturbed, only that they were healthy and well balanced. For this reason, downstream waters protection could not be inherently assured. EPA then had to rely on an inappropriate use of the SPARROW model to generate what DEP considers to be substantially inaccurate downstream protection values (DPVs). The premise for EPA's DPVs was an unsupported assertion that all Florida's estuaries were currently impaired by nutrients and that the acceptable nutrient loading was selected as the mid-point between current and historic loadings. This approach would have been unnecessary if EPA had accepted Florida's minimally disturbed reference site data set.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3316Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1671-3.001.046

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Dissolved Oxygen EPA noted that some of the reference sites had DO levels below the criteria [1] and assumed that low DO was caused by nutrient inputs or other anthropogenic discharges. However, Florida's fresh waters are exposed to temperate to subtropical climates and many originate in low oxygen environments, such as swamps and groundwater aquifers. These sources are naturally low in dissolved oxygen, and have natural daily and seasonal fluctuations in dissolved oxygen that fall below 5.0 mg/L. Since these levels are the result of natural conditions and the native flora and fauna have adapted to this natural variation, they generally do not impact the designated uses. [1] For Classes I and III fresh waters, Florida's dissolved oxygen criterion currently requires that the dissolved oxygen "Shall not be less than 5.0. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above this level shall be maintained." (Rule 62­ 302.530[31]). 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.047

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection DEP conducted a Dissolved Oxygen Study to characterize the causes of naturally low dissolved oxygen levels to more clearly define "natural conditions." The DO Study consisted of: o Quarterly sampling at 342 sites (both reference and non-reference) across Florida

- 150 lake sites

- 160 stream sites

- 32 canal sites o Monitoring consisted of:

- 4-day YSI deployments

- Vertical profile measurements (deploy & retrieval) Counter to the premise that sites with higher human disturbance (and nutrients) are associated with lower DO, the results demonstrated that reference streams and lakes (LDI < 2) actually exhibited higher frequencies of DO values < 5.0 mg/L than sites with higher human disturbance and higher nutrient levels (see Table 1). Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Summary statistics for DEP's DO Study from Florida

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3317Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.049

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection It is the experience of DEP scientists that naturally low DO occurs when:

- Temperatures are elevated;

- Water velocity is low and stagnant conditions prevail;

- Waterbodies receive substantial leaf litter from forests and swamps, and natural decomposition processes reduces DO; and

- Morphological conditions, such as depth, promote depositional processes, which in turn lead to low DO. EPA has acknowledged that Florida has naturally low DO, and has approved many Site Specific Alternative Criteria for DO in Florida waters. The data show that EPA's assumption that low DO results from adverse nutrient enrichment, automatically eliminating them from reference status, is not supported by the data. The mere presence of low dissolved oxygen water is insufficient for determination of human impairment. As stated earlier, Florida has a variety of waters that can be naturally low in dissolved oxygen (DO) (e.g., springs, streams with swamp/wetland headwaters, ephemeral streams during low or no flow). The Florida Geological Survey Bulletin No. 66, Springs of Florida, includes DO measurements from the 1970's and early 2000's that indicate many Florida springs vents exhibit DO values well below 5.0 mg/L (FGS, 2004). These low DO levels are caused by the long residence times of ground waters prior to being issued from the spring vents. Residence times may range from days to thousands of years (Hanshaw et al., 1965). Florida swamp/wetland drainages are characterized by low velocity flows, high organic material inputs (resulting in high sediment oxygen demand), and elevated dissolved organic carbon (high color). These conditions result in naturally depressed DO levels during the warm season. Florida also has a number of ephemeral streams whose flows may slow or completely stop depending upon the amount of rainfall in any given year. These streams can exhibit low DO levels during these low-flow or no-flow conditions. Under prolonged dry periods, these streams may atrophy to a series of disconnected pools or go completely dry. Unfortunately, when FDEP adopted its current DO criteria in 1986, ecologically relevant language regarding an acceptable departure from natural conditions was not included as it was for other natural stressors (e.g., conductivity, pH, temperature). The repercussions of this oversight did not become readily apparent until the implementation of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program. Without a specific natural background clause for dissolved oxygen, numerous natural waters were identified on the Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d) list for low DO. EPA's 1986 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen document includes language within the Conclusions section related to naturally-occurring low DO (EPA 440/5-86-003). 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.056

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3318Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection For example, based upon the strong negative correlation between the Sensitive Taxa metric used in the SCI and conductivity at reference-only sites, the FDEP Ambient Program made the management decision to restrict the use of the SCI tool in minimally disturbed systems to only those sites with conductivities < 600 umhos/cm (see Figure 21). No threshold is used for disturbed freshwater systems since conductivity is strongly positively correlated with human disturbance. FDEP Nutrient and DO Study Results As mentioned earlier, FDEP performed a nutrient and DO study in 2005-2006 that consisted of quarterly sampling at 160 stream sites (both reference and non-reference) across Florida. Monitoring included 4-day multi-sensor sonde deployments (measurements at 15 minute intervals), nutrients, color, chlorophyll, TOC, turbidity, SCI, habitat assessment, and qualitative periphyton surveys. Analyses indicate that while SCI scores responds positively to increasing DO concentrations, the data demonstrate a need for a revised DO criterion for many of Florida's flowing waters (Figure 22). Many biologically healthy, minimally disturbed sites exhibited a significant portion of the diel measurements below the existing 5.0 mg/L criterion. More specifically, approximately 29% of the average DO concentrations for the meter deployment period at minimally disturbed sites were below 5.0 mg/L. Minimally disturbed sites for this purpose included those with a score of 40 or greater on the SCI and an LDI (Landscape Development Intensity Index) of 2 or less. Additionally, 37% of the minimum DO concentrations for the meter deployment period at these minimally disturbed sites were below the 5.0 mg/L criterion. The summary of the data collected during the study provided in Table 2 suggests that a revised statewide DO criterion established at the 10th percentile of the deployment average concentrations of minimally disturbed streams would be approximately 3.5 mg/L. However, the data summary (Table 2) also indicates that significant regional differences exist. In general, the highest natural DO concentrations are found in the Panhandle bioregion, with the lowest concentrations being observed in the Peninsula bioregion, but there is considerable overlap in the natural DO ranges recorded across bioregions. In addition to DO levels, SCI scores are also influenced by a number of environmental factors including conductivity levels and habitat availability. To evaluate the response of SCI scores to DO levels, the data were screened to minimize the influence of these other potential confounding factors on SCI scores. Therefore, only sites with conductivity levels <250, habitat assessment scores >110, and NO2/3 concentrations <0.35 mg/L were used to explore the response of the SCI to DO levels. Figure 22 illustrates the relationship between SCI levels and annual average DO concentrations across all Florida stream sites. The data indicate that sites with annual average DO concentrations naturally below 5 mg/L (down to 3.5 mg/L) still support healthy macroinvertebrate populations. Further, Figures 23-25 show the relationships between the SCI scores and quarterly deployment average DO concentrations statewide and by individual bioregion. Despite the regional differences across the bioregions, all of the figures indicate that sites with deployment average DO concentrations between 3.5 and 4.0 mg/L still exhibit healthy macroinvertebrate communities as evidenced by passing SCI scores. Relationship Between Stream Condition Index Score and Duration of Low DO

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3319Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

FDEP has explored using the SCI to determine when the DO regime within a water body is sufficient to support a healthy, well-balanced benthic invertebrate community. FDEP considers this line of evidence a one-sided test because DO can be a natural stressor, causing the SCI tool to perform poorly, despite the presence of a perfectly natural, albeit tolerant, benthic invertebrate community. The relationship between DO and SCI performance can be examined however, for levels of DO that support acceptable SCI scores. A subset of these data were used to explore the relationship between DO and SCI score. Sites included in this analysis were limited to sites having Habitat Assessment (HA) scores greater than 110 points (on a scale of 11 to 160 with 11 being the worst possible habitat and 160 being the best possible habitat), Landscape Development Intensity Index scores less than 2 (on a scale of 1-10 with one being undisturbed and 10 being a highly urbanized stream), conductivities less than 250 umhos/cm, and NOX values less than 0.35 mg/L. The intent of limiting the site selection to only those that met these conditions was to reduce anthropogenic and natural confounding factors so the SCI response might be more highly correlated to the observed DO regime. Appendix E includes a series of graphs that depict the relationship between SCI score and the duration that a site experienced DO less than a specific threshold. Sites were ordered by SCI score from lowest to highest (X-axis). The number of minutes that each station experienced DO below the defined threshold (e.g., In Figure E1, each column represents the amount of time out of a 4-day deployment that the site experienced DO less than 5.0 mg/L) appears on the Y-axis. The vertical red line is the SCI 2007 threshold for impairment (40 points). Figure E1 indicates that of 38 sites that experienced some duration less than 5.0 mg O2/L, 20 had passing SCI scores. Eleven of those 20 experienced DO less than 5.0 mg/L for the entire 4-day (4,320 minute) sonde deployment. Figure E2 indicates that 8 of 14 sites with passing SCI scores had DO less than 4.5 mg/L for the entire 4-day deployment. Figure E3 indicates that 2 of 11 sites with passing SCI scores had DO less than 4.0 mg/L for the entire 4-day deployment, and two others that were less than 4.0 mg/L for 85% or more of the 4-day deployment. Figure E4 indicates that only 6 sites with passing SCI scores saw DO levels below 3.5 mg/L for any period of time, but the site with highest SCI score for this entire dataset had DO less than 3.5 mg/L for the entire 4-day period. In fact, this site was less than 3.0 mg/L for more than 90% of the 4-day deployment (See Figure E5). Only 4 other sites had passing SCI scores with DO levels below 3.0 for any period of time. By the time we get to Figure E8, DO less than 1.5 mg/L, there are no sites with passing SCI scores. This analysis indicates that some benthic invertebrate communities are quite capable of thriving in waters with DO regimes that experience prolonged departures from DO levels less than 5.0 mg/L. The number of passing SCI scores diminishes as one approaches 3.0 mg/L. Note that if the low DO is a result of natural conditions, the SCI may fail due to these natural conditions, meaning an alternate tool to assess the benthic invertebrate community health may be needed at this extreme of low DO. The benthic community that persists under a chronic low DO regime may be composed of more tolerant taxa that are capable of exploiting naturally occurring stressful niches that others cannot. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.057

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Relative Sensitivity of Freshwater Invertebrates Compared to Fishes

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3320Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Remarkably, there is still a paucity of information regarding the relative sensitivity of freshwater benthic invertebrates compared to fishes to low DO. The bulk of the available data comes from studies that were available to the EPA authors at the time the DO criteria were drafted back in 1986. This older literature suggests that the range in response to DO is greater than that of fishes. Examples can be found where some species of stream invertebrates, for example, those from high velocity mountain streams, require much higher DO than do sensitive salmonid species (Benedetto, 1970; Jacob et al., 1984; Kapoor and Griffiths, 1975). However, there are also examples of species of stream invertebrates that can tolerate DO concentrations far below those of most fish species (Landman, et al, 2005; Surber and Bessey, 1974; Connolly, et al., 2004). Several authors have suggested that freshwater stream invertebrate communities in low gradient Gulf Coast streams tend to be generalists (Adams et al., 2004; Williams, et al., 2005; Johnson and Kennedy, 2003; Kaller and Kelso, 2007). Invertebrate communities with high proportions of generalists are able to respond with more plasticity to highly variable environmental conditions. Whereas most fish species will migrate in and out of an area depending upon the current conditions, benthic invertebrates typically stay put until conditions approach lethal limits, at which point those species with the capacity to do so will attempt to drift out of the affected area (Connolly et al., 2004). It is not uncommon for fish to be rare or absent in many of the small shallow stream segments that FDEP collects invertebrates from (personal comm. from Russel Frydenborg, 2010). These streams often support healthy, wellbalanced benthic invertebrate communities. It makes sense therefore, to manage these systems to protect the benthic invertebrate community since it is more representative of the resident community than is the transient fish community. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.070

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Coliform Bacteria Because fecal coliform bacteria originate from any warm blooded animal, including deer, bear, otter, raccoons, birds, and other wildlife that frequent the undisturbed reference streams, and because Klebsiella (measured as a component of fecal coliform) are prevalent during the decomposition of wood, it is not surprising that some reference streams have levels of coliform bacteria that exceed the criterion. As early as 1965, researchers concluded that the assessment of the impact of human activities on water quality is complicated by naturally occurring populations of coliform bacteria because these natural sources exist in substantial numbers in the absence of human activity (Hanes et al. 1965). Hardina and Fujioka (1991) concluded that the primary source of coliforms in Hawaiian streams was from native soils, where these "indicator" bacteria were naturally reproducing down to soil depths of 36 cm, and not from human sources. Hendricks (1971) suggested that, even in minimally disturbed oligotrophic streams, enteric bacteria multiply in stream sediments because of the ability of sediments to concentrate overlying dissolved nutrients. McSwain and Swank (1974) agreed with these conclusions and found that undisturbed oligotrophic streams (within national forests) in western North Carolina supported large populations of naturally reproducing coliform bacteria, meaning that significant Type I errors would occur if assessing a site only on the basis of coliform counts. Nieman and Brion (2001) state," It is not enough to know that fecal coliforms (FC) are present in surface waters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3321Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Information about the most probable animal source and age of fecal materials is requisite to estimate the potential risk indicated and set standards for recreational contact." In the case of Florida's nutrient benchmark sites, land use information was carefully analyzed and field visits were conducted to assure that the only likely sources of coliforms were from native wildlife and resident reproducing populations of bacteria in the stream sediments and adjacent floodplain. Therefore, EPA's contention that the mere presence of coliforms disqualifies a site from being considered "reference" is scientifically unfounded. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.072

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mercury Mercury contamination in fish tissue is a national issue. However, within Florida it is caused by atmospheric deposition from a variety of emission sources, including power plants, incinerators, and cement kilns, rather than surface water discharges. As such, listings for mercury impairment are not indicative of local sources and are not relevant to the selection of reference sites. In fact, extensive evidence has shown that the waterbodies with biota most contaminated by mercury are those with low alkalinity and low nutrients, or low trophic status. Therefore, it is not unexpected that many of DEP's low nutrient, minimally disturbed reference sites have fish tissue levels of mercury above the consumption advisory. See Section on FDEP's current Mercury TMDL Study for more information on the influence on nutrients on mercury contamination of fish. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.111

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection It appears that the EPA authors who drafted the 1986 Water Quality Criteria document for DO logically did not intend for naturally low DO waters to be considered in violation of the DO criteria. It follows then that these waters should not be considered impaired during the 303(d) process. Given the variety of physical, biological, chemical, and climatological factors that are capable of producing waters with naturally depressed DO, and FDEP's current overly simplistic DO criteria (that do not account for natural low DO), it is inappropriate for EPA to exclude benchmark sites with naturally low DO from numeric nutrient criteria development. If the site is within a minimally disturbed watershed with no apparent anthropogenic contributions to the low DO, there is no reason to exclude the benchmark site. In fact, the organic matter from wetland drainage also contributes nutrients, especially nitrogen, to the streams resulting in naturally elevated nitrogen levels in the streams receiving water from marshes or wetlands. Figures 18 and 19 illustrate the relationships between average DO levels and total organic carbon to color, respectively. As the TOC concentration increases, the natural level of nitrogen in the stream increases (see Figure 20). Therefore, to assure that the full range of natural nutrients is considered in the derivation of numeric nutrient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3322Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams criteria, sites with naturally low DO levels below the existing criteria, especially those strongly influenced by discharge from marshes and wetlands, should not be omitted from the analysis. It would be more logical to use a decision tree that is designed to discriminate between natural and anthropogenic causes of low DO to decide whether or not to include a site. 

# Comment ID 1722-1.001.020

Author Name: Cunniff L. Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 7. Under the current proposal, the criteria adds a new impairment for the Little Econ River. 

# Comment ID 1725-1.001.005

Author Name: Nyhus S. Organization: Flaherty & Hood, P.A. on behalf of Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board III. EPA's Proposed Standards Will Regulate Unimpaired Waters Because They Are Not Based on an Identified Impairment Threshold Related to the Agency's failure to demonstrate a causal relationship, the proposal, as it applies to streams, rivers, and canals, fails to identify the threshold level of a response variable to determine whether a particular water body is impaired. The SAB recently admonished the Agency for releasing guidance that did not stress this critical component of standards derivation. Although the proposal claims that the standards are used to address excessive plant growth, EPA merely looked at nutrient levels in "unimpacted" or "pristine" rivers and streams and presumed that the level of nutrients occurring in those waters is necessary to assure protection in all other streams in that ecoregion (a criteria violation occurs if total nitrogen or total phosphorus concentrations are exceeded, regardless of the degree of plant growth occurring). However, nutrients are just one of many potential causative agents; they are not the ecological response variable indicating the existence of an impairment. Thus, the obvious fallacy in the approach is that it assumes elevated nutrient levels in streams are responsible for the impairment. This assumption will be responsible for forcing unnecessary regulation on unimpaired waters (including 25% of the streams and rivers EPA deems to be pristine) merely because the nutrient concentrations are elevated without the presence of credible evidence of use impairment. 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. This approach does not serve any environmental purpose and will waste energy and resources needlessly. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.002

Author Name: Merrill M.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3323Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Hillsborough County SUMMARY OF KEY COMMENTS General
1. There are some significant issues relative to promulgation of numeric nutrient criteria that need to be addressed. Of specific concern is the high degree of variability found in the analyses performed to derive the criteria, and the lack of relationships between nutrients and biological response in streams. This has the potential for creating situations where healthy waterbodies are listed as impaired or impaired waterbodies are not listed. This is most prevalent through the application of the reference approach within the Stream IPVs. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.020

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County In-stream Protective Value [Section III.C(1) to III.C(5)] 1. The use of a reference approach for the determination of numeric nutrient criteria for streams has issues based upon the lack of a cause/effect relationship found in Florida's streams between biological health and nutrient concentrations. Streams typically do not show significant response to elevated nutrient levels and response parameters of Comments on 40 CFR Part 131 Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009­ 0596 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 16 Tuesday, January 26, 2010 Proposed Rules GNV/2010/091994F/4/27/105 5 significance (DO, algal growth, periphyton growth) are much more responsive to hydrology and local substrate. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.021

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 2. The EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects" and then go on to state that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary". This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be necessarily protective of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.023

Author Name: Merrill M.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3324Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Hillsborough County 4. EPA in its development of reference stations eliminated sites that were listed for impairment for DO tied to nutrients, and stations that were listed for nutrient impairment, even if they showed healthy biology. This is not appropriate and potentially may skew the nutrient criteria. Many of Florida's waters have naturally low DO and high nutrients (blackwater, wetland dominated systems) and recent evaluation of FDEP listings shows the potential for healthy systems to be listed as impaired based upon low DO and perceived high nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.029

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 10. The reference approach scoring system can exhibit significant site variability. Several documents, including EPAHQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 , cite "nuisance" sources of variability such as season, year, repeat visits, lab sub-sampling as major complicating factors. TSD EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 found that the largest percentage of SCI variance was associated with differences in site characteristics from 1 visit to the next. The fact that year to year variation as well as seasonal variation at each site generally exhibited the most variation seems to imply that that not enough long-term data has been included. This is especially true within the Bone Valley regions where very limited data were utilized. This is point out in more detail within the Specific Comments. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.030

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 11. Additional significant factors may also need to be included in the reference stream approach. For example: "SCIappeared to be correlated with watershed size because the most disturbed sites happened to be very small" (EPA-HQOW-2009-0596-0003.17 ). 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.034

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 14. "Healthy" streams are chosen using the stream condition index (SCI), however the SCI is cited as not used as a response indicator for the IPV determination. In the EPA Rule and TSD, the SCI is noted as a ‘weak correlation' due primarily to within-site variability. This is a similar case for TN and TP (i.e., weak correlations). TN and TP reductions are then proposed as the sole de facto causative parameters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3325Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.036

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 16. Given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean, there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean that is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.118

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Rivers and Streams III.C(1) Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams EPA is proposing numeric nutrient Statement: The following section describes the methodology used to derive the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for streams. EPA is soliciting comments and scientific data and information regarding these proposed criteria and their derivation. Original comment letter contains additional information in the table from the federal register of the proposed critieria for streams and rivers on page 46 of the pdf. See original comment letter. Comment: Overall the use of a reference approach is not sufficient for use in establishing numeric nutrient criteria for streams. The degree of variability and the significant impact of local hydrology on the expression of nutrient response is such that regional numbers will create significant errors in the determination of impaired and unimpaired waters. No mention of a minimum required number of samples is mentioned while timing and seasonality are also important sampling factors. It is recommended that the annual geomean is based on a minimum of 8 samples equally divided among seasons. Note that the FDEP does perform monthly sampling (i.e. 12 samples/year) at some data stations, which is more rigorous and should be a recommended goal. Regarding NWR delineations; the identification of regional TN criteria, which isolates the Bone Valley from the Peninsula Region, is not appropriate as the regionalization was associated with soil conditions reflective of Phosphorus issues not nitrogen. Additionally, the Suwannee River has been shown to have a phosphorous-rich geological formation along with the Alapaha and Santa Fe River drainages. In general, more NWRs are better and can be more tuned to local nutrient conditions. Previous studies (see EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0068) have proposed up to 47 regions (see

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3326Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams below figure). Geology should be included in NWR delineations, although many other factors (e.g. wetlands, hydrology) also need to be included. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3: Example TN map from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596­ 0068 which delineated 47 regions based on water chemistry, hydrology, and physiography. See original comment letter.

Additionally, in reviewing EPA documentation related to NWRs, it seems the EPA has developed criteria based on EPA STORET stations and not on WBIDs. For example, in the Bone Valley, 22 STORET stations were used however this only represents 16 WBIDs. Up to 3 STORET stations were found in 1 WBID for Bone Valley (and there are likely higher ratios for other NWRs). Some weighting or averaging will be needed for multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.120

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Statement: As mentioned earlier, to effectively apply this well understood and documented science, EPA has recommended that nutrient criteria include both causal (e.g., TN and TP) and response variables (e.g., chlorophyll a and some measure of clarity) for water bodies. Comment: Although EPA recognizes that a stressor-response causation is needed, the EPA identifies that they don't have this and therefore don't use it for the streams. Instead the EPA uses a method to define biologically healthy systems and then use the data from those systems to derive criteria. Additionally SCI shows only weak correlations to nutrients due to the influence of other factors (hydrology, canopy cover, turbidity, etc.). The EPA was not able to demonstrate "strong correlations" between stressors and responses, however is proposinglimits to stressors anyway. The principle criteria approach (i.e., reference approach) is based on many macroinvertebrate related variables (clingers, community structure, etc.) that combine to establish healthy stream ecosystems. The SCI approach is not defined by TN and TP only; however these are the only parameters (in conjunction with the nutrient watershed region) used to assess impairment for streams in the state. This is extremely reductive and not applicable given the complexity of river systems in Florida. 

# Comment ID 1764-1.001.009

Author Name: Mowry G.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3327Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Marion County Stormwater Section 7. The proposed numeric nutrient criteria for rivers and streams is not based on a strong dese-response relationship and is not corroborated by measured biological responses. Based on EPA's guidance, this relationship is recommended in order to establish a scientifically defensible criteria. However, numeric criteria is being established without this relationship and therefore would not be scientifically defensible. The County recommends that EPA move toward using a reference site approach to establish criteria for rivers and streams. 

# Comment ID 1764-1.001.010

Author Name: Mowry G. Organization: Marion County Stormwater Section 8. The County has reviewed FDEP's approach to identify benchmark sites and find it to be logical, thorough, and protective of designated uses. Based on quotes from EPA Peer Reviewers, they did as well. [1] The County reviewed EPA's methodology as outlined in the proposed rule and is requesting clarification on a couple of points. We would like to confirm that the 303(d) list was one that used the FDEP's Impaired Water Rule criteria. [1] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. June 2009. Technical Support Document: Development of Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Lakes and Streams. 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.016

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa 4. Methods of Establishing IPV and DPV In establishing the IPVs and downstream protection values ("DPV") for streams, the EPA used a reference stream approach. However, this approach is inappropriate. The EPA approach includes very limited data points. In some instances, only one sample was conducted for a given site. This approach results in a staggering number of Type I Errors and arbitrary criteria that will result in few, if any, water bodies in Florida meeting the proposed standards. Instead, the EPA should use a dose-response relationship approach. The dose-response relationship allows for the quantitative assessment of the deterministic factors contributing to the adverse effects the EPA is trying to protect against. The reference system approach is inferior to a dose-response relationship because it does not rely on any quantitative mechanism to assess whether the criterion value will result in the anticipated adverse response. Dose-response relationships allow for the estimation of variability in response to be accounted for while the reference system approach relies simply on an arbitrary selection of a percentile of a distribution which may or may not be representative of other streams in the region. By not incorporating the natural variability in response, the reference system approach is likely to result in falsely declaring impairments and a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3328Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams misallocation of limited resources to properly manage Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.073

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa Additionally, the EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis" that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects and that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary". This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be necessarily protective of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 1770-1.001.036

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City 4. Methods of Establishing IPV and DPV In establishing the instream protection values and downstream protection values ("DPV") for streams, the EPA used a reference stream approach. However, this approach is inappropriate. The EPA approach includes very limited data points. In some instances, only one sample was conducted for a given site. This approach results in a staggering number of Type I errors and arbitrary criteria that will result in few, if any, water bodies in Florida meeting the proposed standards. Instead, the EPA should use a dose-response relationship approach. The dose-response relationship allows for the quantitative assessment of the deterministic factors contributing to the adverse effects the EPA is trying to protect against. The reference system approach is inferior to a dose-response relationship because it does not rely on any quantitative mechanism to assess whether the criterion value will result in the anticipated adverse response. Dose- response relationships allow for the estimation of variability in response to be accounted for while the reference system approach relies simply on an arbitrary selection of a percentile of a distribution which may or may not be representative of other streams in the region. By not incorporating the natural variability in response, the reference system approach is likely to result in falsely declaring impairments and a misallocation of limited resources to properly manage Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 1770-1.001.038

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3329Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City Additionally, the EPA relies on what they Characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis" that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects and that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to docnment and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary". This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regiohal numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be necessarily protective of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.045

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County 4. Methods of Establishing IPV and DPV In establishing the instream protection values and downstream protection values ("DPV") for streams, the EPA used a reference stream approach. However, this approach is inappropriate. The EPA approach includes very limited data points. In some instances, only one sample was conducted for a given site. This approach results in a staggering number of Type I Errors and arbitrary criteria that will result in few, if any, water bodies in Florida meeting the proposed standards. Instead, the EPA should use a dose-response relationship approach. The dose-response relationship allows for the quantitative assessment of the deterministic factors contributing to the adverse effects the EPA is trying to protect against. The reference system approach is inferior to a dose-response relationship because it does not rely on any quantitative mechanism to assess whether the criterion value will result in the anticipated adverse response. Dose-response relationships allow for the estimation of variability in response to be accounted for while the reference system approach relies simply on an arbitrary selection of a percentile of a distribution which may or may not be representative of other streams in the region. By not incorporating the natural variability in response, the reference system approach is likely to result in falsely declaring impairments and a misallocation of limited resources to properly manage Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.047

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County Additionally, the EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis" that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects and that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary". This statement is essentially an

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3330Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be necessarily protective of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.039

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville 4. Methods of Establishing IPV and DPV In establishing the IPVs and downstream protection values ("DPV") for streams, the EPA used a reference stream approach. However, this approach is inappropriate. The EPA approach includes very limited data points. In some instances, only one sample was conducted for a given site. This approach results in a staggering number of Type I Errors and arbitrary criteria that will result in few, if any, water bodies in Florida meeting the proposed standards. Instead, the EPA should use a dose-response relationship approach. The dose-response relationship allows for the quantitative assessment of the deterministic factors contributing to the adverse effects the EPA is trying to protect against. The reference system approach is inferior to a dose-response relationship because it does not rely on any quantitative mechanism to assess whether the criterion value will result in the anticipated adverse response. Dose-response relationships allow for the estimation of varibility in response to be accounted for while the reference system approach relies simply on an arbitrary selection of a percentile of a distribution which mayor may not be representative of other streams in the region. By not incorporating the natural variability in response, the reference system approach is likely to result in falsely declaring impairments and a misallocation of limited resources to properly manage Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.041

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville Additionally, the EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis" that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects and that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable an.d expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary". This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria win not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be necessarily protective of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.040

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3331Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission 4. Methods of Establishing IPV and DPV In establishing the instream protection values and downstream protection values ("DPV") for streams, the EPA used a reference stream approach. However, this approach is inappropriate. The EPA approach includes very limited data points. In some instances, only one sample was conducted for a given site. This approach results in a staggering number of Type I Errors and arbitrary criteria that will result in few, ifany, water bodies in Florida meeting the proposed standards. Instead, the EPA should use a dose-response relationship approach. The dose-response relationship allows for the quantitative assessment of the deterministic factors contributing to the adverse effects the EPA is trying to protect against. The reference system approach is inferior to a dose-response relationship because it does not rely on any quantitative mechanism to assess whether the criterion value will result in the anticipated adverse response. Dose-response relationships allow for the estimation of variability in response to be accounted for while the reference system approach relies simply on an arbitrary selection of a percentile of a distribution which mayor may not be representative of other streams in the region. By not incorporating the natural variability in response, the reference system approach is likely to result in falsely declaring impairments and a misallocation of limited resources to properly manage Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.042

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission Additionally, the EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis" that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects and that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary". This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be necessarily protective of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.011

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 4. Item III.C(2)(c) - Methodology for Calculating Instream Protection Values - The Nutrient Watershed Region Distribution Method. EPA states on page 80, as did the State of Florida in their independent analysis, "EPA analyzed

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3332Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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 in Florida streams. More specifically, the Agency was not able to demonstrate a sufficient strong correlation between the biological response indicators ... and TN or TP concentrations." It should be noted that that Florida has over one-third of all nutrient data in the country in STORET, indicating that if such a relationship was going to be identified, it would most likely happen using Florida data. The relationships were not determined, which means that control of nutrient content in streams does not control biological response - the vary target EPA stated it was seeking in these numeric nutrient criteria. How is it possible, then, to believe that control of nutrient content in streams by use of reference stream nutrients is going to control biological response? 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.012

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 5. Item III.C(2)(c) - Methodology for Calculating Instream Protection Values - The Nutrient Watershed Region Distribution Method. The proposal states that, instead of using reference streams which have little or no anthropogenic impacts, biologically healthy streams (i.e., SCI > 40) were used for determination of the thresholds. Even though the use of reference streams is invalid (see previous conullent), identification of reference streams by biological health is better than by least disturbed streams (LDI < 2). 

# Comment ID 1774.001.007

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida There is always a concern about creeks and streams being listed as impaired because of low dissolved oxygen when in reality the streams are healthy. The rule criteria do not apparently provide for healthy streams with low dissolved oxygen. We have many wetlands, swamps and hammocks that contribute flows to our water bodies and which are sources of low oxygen dominated waters. Naturally low dissolved oxygen waters should not be penalized by the inability of the criteria to account appropriately for such phenomena. Furthermore, we believe that non-compliance with the DO standard has resulted in inappropriate proposals by EPA of TMDL's on water bodies originating and flowing through our property. 

# Comment ID 1774.001.008

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida There is not a sufficiently high correlation between the health of a stream and the quantity of nutrients sought to be

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3333Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams controlled. The criteria will deem many streams to be unhealthy when in reality the streams are healthy. There is not always a correlation between the amount of the specific nutrients in the stream and the health of a stream. The ratio of one nutrient to another also plays an important part. The proposed criteria fail to adequately address this issue. 

# Comment ID 1774.001.012

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida Comments on EPA's Concerns about 303(d) Listings for Benchmark Sites We strongly agree with FDEPs assertion that exceedances of the current water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (DO), coliform bacteria, and mercury should not characterize a water body as being impaired or automatically disqualify a site from being characterized as achieving a reference condition. Assuming that low DO is always caused by nutrient inputs or other anthropogenic contributions is inappropriate. It is well established that Florida's waters are subject to temperate or subtropical climates and often originate in low oxygen environments such as swamps and groundwater aquifers. These sources are naturally low in dissolved oxygen, and have a high degree of natural hourly, daily and seasonal fluctuations in dissolved oxygen levels that often fall below the 5.0 mg/l standard. At Deseret we find a high degree of contributing factors to low DO in our flowing water bodies including: streams, lakes, flowing drainage channels, and drainage impoundments. We have a high concentration of wetlands, swamps and hammocks that contribute flows to our water bodies. Our Ranch property is interlaced with drainage ditches that contribute shallow groundwater from the surficial aquifer system to our surface water bodies. It would be safe to say that most of the surface water originating on Deseret is dominated by sources from a low oxygen environment. Furthermore, we believe that non-compliance with the DO standard has resulted in inappropriate proposals by EPA of TMDL's on water bodies originating and flowing through Deseret. We recognize that whenever there is a concern with the health of a water body based on numeric standards, a biological validation of nutrient impairments of water body conditions may be necessary to determine whether impairment of aquatic organisms due to nutrients has actually occurred. 

# Comment ID 1774.001.017

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida Neither high concentrations nor low concentrations are the complete answer to stream health and variations are normal. The duration of a high or a low must be addressed as well as the number of highs and lows during a particular period. Streams are not constant but are constantly changing. Because the water is moving, neither the low nor the high will persist long. A high may last only for a matter of hours yet cause the overall data to be skewed. One extreme high may cause an exceedance of an average yet may not be cause for alarm, especially if followed by more normal sample results. Moreover, there is variation depending on when in the month the data is collected. One sample per month may

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3334Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams not be indicative of the monthly norm. We agree with FDEP that if 75% of the data used by EPA was collected during a couple of years with climatically abnormal conditions the bias introduced into the selected numeric criteria is unacceptable. Further we are concerned that EPA's practice of using monthly data to select nutrient criteria and then requiring water quality data collected on a quarterly basis for determination of the annual mean for compliance reporting may be inappropriate. Depending on the months selected for the quarterly sampling and the fact that fewer data points are used, we are concerned that the annual mean concentration based on quarterly sampling calculated for compliance purposes may be skewed and the end result may be an inaccurate determination of non-compliance. 

# Comment ID 1774.001.019

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida Comments on whether EPA's Stream Criteria are Protective of Designated Uses We heartily agree with FDEP's statement: "The relative lack of a dose-response relationship between nutrients and valued ecological attributes in streams clearly indicates that criteria established through the reference site approach should include additional mechanisms to avoid arbitrary and unnecessary regulatory actions." We support using, at the least, the upper distribution of the reference site data (90th percentile) and requiring biological validation of nutrient impairments prior to a regulatory action. We are concerned that any assessments of biological health status of a water body also include the determination of the causes of any impairment (nutrients versus some other factor) to avoid spending resources unnecessarily for restoration efforts without any corresponding environmental benefit. If a water body or stream appears to not be meeting any adopted criteria then there should be a careful evaluation of data set prior to any regulatory action. A more robust data set may need to be gathered to verify initial findings or conclusions. Confidence levels in the data should be certain before concluding that water bodies and streams are impaired and before requiring costly "fixes". We believe that EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria are overprotective. It is our understanding that 40 percent of FDEP's reference sites in our nutrient watershed region (Peninsula) would fail EPA's proposed in-stream criteria for Total Nitrogen (TN). In our view this failure rate is totally unacceptable and indicates a need to reexamine the derivation methodology used by EPA. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.002

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation INTRODUCTION

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3335Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The following provides comments on Federal Register Notice Volume 75, Number 16 filed under 40 CFR Part 131 entitled "Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters" (EPA, 2010a). The comments are structured based upon the specific sections outlined within the Federal Register Notice. A summary of key comments is provided below as well as key comments for each of the waterbody types, including lakes, streams, springs and clear streams, and canals. Detailed comments by section of the Federal Register Notice are then provided following the summary. Comments provided reflect review of the Federal Register Notice as listed above, as well as supporting documentation provided in a document entitled "Technical Support Document for U.S. EPA's Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh Waters (TSD)" (EPA 2010b). SUMMARY OF KEY COMMENTS General 1. There are some significant issues relative to promulgation of numeric nutrient criteria that need to be addressed. Of specific concern is the high degree of variability found in the analyses performed to derive the criteria, and the lack of relationships between nutrients and biological response in streams. This has the potential for creating situations where healthy waterbodies are listed as impaired or impaired waterbodies are not listed. This is most prevalent through the application of the reference approach within the Stream IPVs. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.017

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation In-stream Protective Value [Section III.C(1) to III.C(5)] 1. The use of a reference approach for the determination of numeric nutrient criteria for streams has issues based upon the lack of a cause/effect relationship found in Florida's streams between biological health and nutrient concentrations. Streams typically do not show significant response to elevated nutrient levels and response parameters of significance (DO, algal growth, periphyton growth) are much more responsive to hydrology and local substrate. 2. The EPA relies on what they characterize as "substantial and compelling scientific basis that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects" and then go on to state that "the value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site by site, segment by segment basis is no longer necessary". This statement is essentially an acknowledgement that the regional numeric nutrient criteria will not necessarily result in values that are relevant to the underlying mechanisms that govern the interactions between nutrient inputs and physical and biological processes in Florida streams or be necessarily protective of stream water quality. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.088

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3336Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Statement: As mentioned earlier, to effectively apply this well understood and documented science, EPA has recommended that nutrient criteria include both causal (e.g., TN and TP) and response variables (e.g., chlorophyll a and some measure of clarity) for water bodies. Comment: Although EPA recognizes that a stressor-response causation is needed, the EPA identifies that they don't have this and therefore don't use it for the streams. Instead the EPA uses a method to define biologically healthy systems and then use the data from those systems to derive criteria. Additionally SCI shows only weak correlations to nutrients due to the influence of other factors (hydrology, canopy cover, turbidity, etc.). The EPA was not able to demonstrate "strong correlations" between stressors and responses, however is proposing limits to stressors anyway. The principle criteria approach (i.e., reference approach) is based on many macro- invertebrate related variables (clingers, community structure, etc.) that combine to establish healthy stream ecosystems. The SCI approach is not defined by TN and TP only; however these are the only parameters (in conjunction with the nutrient watershed region) used to assess impairment for streams in the state. This is extremely reductive and not applicable given the complexity of river systems in Florida. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.149

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 5. EPA in its development of reference stations eliminated sites that were listed for impairment for DO tied to nutrients, and stations that were listed for nutrient impairment, even if they showed healthy biology. This is not appropriate and potentially may skew the nutrient criteria. Many of Florida's waters have naturally low DO and high nutrients (blackwater, wetland dominated systems) and recent evaluation of FDEP listings shows the potential for healthy systems to be listed as impaired based upon low DO and perceived high nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.152

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 8. Another example of the EPA/FDEP disagreement includes: "In the meantime, it must be acknowledged that the differences between DEP and EPA over the listing process will confuse the public and regulated entities because of its occasional, but not insignificant, inconsistency." (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0105) 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.154

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3337Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 10. The reference approach scoring system can exhibit significant site variability. Several documents, including EPAHQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 , cite "nuisance" sources of variability such as season, year, repeat visits, lab sub-sampling as major complicating factors. TSD EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 found that the largest percentage of SCI variance was associated with differences in site characteristics from 1 visit to the next. The fact that year to year variation as well as seasonal variation at each site generally exhibited the most variation seems to imply that that not enough long-term data has been included. This is especially true within the Bone Valley region where very limited data were utilized. This is pointed out in more detail within the Specific Comments. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.155

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 11. Additional significant factors may also need to be included in the reference stream approach. For example: "SCIappeared to be correlated with watershed size because the most disturbed sites happened to be very small" (EPA-HQOW-2009-0596-0003.17 ). 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.156

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 12. In general, the importance of hydrology, shading, local system alteration, and sediment oxygen demand (SOD) seems to be consistently under-emphasized in the Technical Supporting Documentation (TSD). These are generally highly site specific compounding factors, and the degree of expression of nutrients at any location is highly dependant upon them. This is further reason why the reference approach does not work well on a regional basis and creates significant additional site specific issues that would have to be dealt with using the SSAC process. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.158

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 14. "Healthy" streams are chosen using the stream condition index (SCI), however the SCI is cited as not used as a response indicator for the IPV determination. In the EPA Rule and TSD, the SCI is noted as a ‘weak correlation' due primarily to within-site variability. This is a similar case for TN and TP (i.e., weak correlations). TN and TP reductions

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3338Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams are then proposed as the sole de facto causative parameters. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.160

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 16. Given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean, there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean that is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3339Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.162

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Original comment letter contains additional data information in Figure 3: Example TN map from EPA-HQ-OW-2009­ 0596-0068 which delineated 47 regions based on water chemistry, hydrology, and physiography. See original comment letter. Additionally, in reviewing EPA documentation related to NWRs, it seems the EPA has developed criteria based on EPA STORET stations and not on WBIDs. For example, in the Bone Valley, 22 STORET stations were used however this only represents 16 WBIDs. Up to 3 STORET stations were found in 1 WBID for Bone Valley (and there are likely higher ratios for other NWRs). Some weighting or averaging will be needed for multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.008

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 Instead, EPA utilized a crude averaging methodology that by its very nature will deem healthy streams as impaired. The obvious flaw in EPA's approach is that it fails to recognize that [n]utrients are unlike any other "pollutant" regulated by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Most water quality criteria are based on a toxicity threshold, evidenced by a dose-response relationship, where higher concentrations can be demonstrated to be harmful, and acceptable concentrations can be established at a level below which adverse responses are elicited (usually in laboratory toxicity tests). In contrast, nutrients are not only present naturally in aquatic systems, they are absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of biological communities, and are sometimes moderated in their expression by many natural factors. Therefore, the development of protective nutrient criteria is immensely more complicated than that for toxic substances.[5]

[5] FDEP, State of Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Plan, 1 (March 2009) (emphasis added). 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.009

Author Name: Childs D.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3340Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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 broad-brushed regional criteria fail to acknowledge that the level of nutrients that water bodies need for biological health -- as well as the level of nutrient loads that create problems -- varies from water body to water body. The proposed rule confirms what the scientific community has known and reminded EPA for quite sometime: the relationship between nutrients and natural factors such as stream biology, color, shading, flow rate, pH, etc. requires site specific nutrient criteria.[6] 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."[7] As FDEP notes, the proposed rule fails to "fully acknowledge the basic limitation of the ‘reference approach', that there is no link between criteria and impairment (no ‘dose-response' relationship)."[8] Crudely derived, generally applicable nutrient standards, such as those proposed by EPA, will cause numerous unintended consequences, including the designation of healthy water bodies as impaired and an overlay of standards that conflict with existing, scientifically vetted nutrient standards.

[6] EPA, Science Advisory Board, Processes and Effects Committee Advisory Report, Draft, 1 (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 (Feb. 17, 2010), available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/dep_concerns_epa_nutrients_0210.pdf

. [7] EPA, Science Advisory Board, Processes and Effects Committee Advisory Report, Draft, at 22. [8] 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). 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.011

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 Studies: Conclusion The only reasonable conclusion to draw from these case studies is that EPA's reference condition approach is arbitrary and capricious. EPA's statistical guesswork has resulted in overly conservative criteria that do not reflect the level of nutrients needed to maintain water body health; instead, the criteria actually deem healthy streams as impaired. The

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3341Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams proposed nutrient criteria fall far short of EPA's own regulations, which explicitly require criteria to be based on a "sound scientific rationale."[22]

[22] 40 C.F.R. 131.11(a). 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.013

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 III. Not only is the reference condition approach an invalid method for setting regional nutrient criteria, but EPA's application of the reference condition approach is fatally flawed EPA was forced to utilize the reference condition to set numeric nutrient criteria for Florida streams and canals, because the agency could not identify a causal relationship between nutrients and biological responses for these waters. As explained above, this is a scientifically invalid method for setting numeric nutrient criteria. Additionally, EPA's application of this methodology in this rulemaking is also fatally flawed. The proposed instream protective values fail to use sufficient data to reliably generate an instream protective value; all sources of variability have not been taken into account in determining the criteria; and the false positive rates resulting from adoption of the EPA's proposed criteria fail to comport with widely accepted statistical and scientific principles. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.014

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 The instream protective criteria for streams proposed by the EPA rely upon insufficient data necessary to obtain a reliable estimate of a protective threshold. The result is statistically indefensible criteria when applied to EPA's own reference streams. It follows that the instream protective criteria cannot conceivably be defensible when applied to other streams across an entire region of Florida. Fully 70% of the stations utilized by the EPA have data for only one year and another 15% have data for only two years during the 19 year period covered by the data. As a result of having such limited time coverage, the temporal (i.e. year-to-year) variability cannot be reliably measured, and therefore this critical component is missing from EPA's threshold calculation. Instead, the EPA simply ignores the year-to-year variability by utilizing stations aggregated over years, which, for 70% of the stations, is a single observation in a single year. This methodology does not produce statistically defensible criteria that can be used to judge whether an annual site mean is or is not out of compliance. [23]

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3342Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

[23] Info Tech, Critique of EPA's Proposed of EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Streams, (April 20, 2010). The full text of this critique, as well as a signed affidavit from Dr. Jim McClave of Info Tech and Dr. McClave's curriculum vitae, are enclosed with these comments. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.015

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 also proposed an alternative methodology developed by the FDEP. This methodology utilizes data collapsed to the waterbody-year level, averaged over stations and sampling events. With sufficient data, a statistical method that considers the spatial (station-to-station) and temporal (year-to-year) variability could be used to develop a statistically reliable criterion,[24] at least for the streams from which the data was collected. EPA's use of aggregated data that ignores the variability inherent in the data, however, will not reliably measure nutrient levels needed to regulate water quality.[25]

[24] Statistically reliable, of course, does not equate to biologically relevant. [25] Id. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.018

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 could conceivably correct data flaws in its application of the reference condition to streams and canals by collecting sufficient data upon which to base a compliance test, consider and analyze all sources of variability, and then determine the criteria for the test based on sound scientific principles. However, this correction would take time, and time is not something EPA has provided itself in the Consent Decree. Further, as explained in the preceding section, improving the application of the reference stream approach would not render the approach defensible for deriving nutrient criteria. Thus, not only is the reference stream approach an invalid means of developing nutrient criteria, but EPA's application of the reference stream approach is flawed. Again, this analysis demonstrates that EPA has not developed scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria for streams or canals. The appropriate action for EPA to take is to revoke the necessity determination and secure judicial relief from the Consent Decree, so FDEP can resume its management of Florida's sophisticated nutrient water quality programs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3343Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1782-1.001.056

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 4: Waters EPA has agreed do not need Nutrient-Related TMDLs In the late 1980's, the consulting firm of CH2M Hill evaluated the existing nutrient background data for a small stream in central Florida (within WBID #3170) that is commonly known as Reedy Creek. The purpose of this study was to determine the total nitrogen and total phosphorus levels that were representative of natural background conditions, before the influence of development in the watershed. Available data from reliable sources (prior to 1970 and collected by USGS) was gathered and evaluated and a determination made that natural background was 1.46 mg/L-TN and 0.04 mg/L-TP. These levels were reviewed and accepted by FDEP (then FDER) as representative of unaffected, natural background levels for nutrients in this stream. These levels differ than the regional criteria proposed by EPA that would be applicable to this stream.[19] Additionally, the export of organic nitrogen from wetland parcels in this watershed is well documented and shows that nitrogen export from wetlands in the flood plain of the stream typically exceed the numeric criteria set by EPA. Consequently, the EPA criteria are set too low for natural conditions and fail to account for the organic nitrogen export from deciduous hardwood swamp forests that are characteristic of much of Central Florida. These wetlands are also a factor in the low dissolved oxygen conditions exhibited by WBID 3170C and for which site specific alternative criteria was granted in the mid-1980's. As recently as 2007, FDEP and EPA agreed that the low dissolved oxygen in this WBID was naturally occurring and completely unrelated to anthropogenic nutrient loading.[20] [19] The applicable proposed regional criteria are 1.205 mg/L-TN and 0.107 mg/L-TP. [20] FDEP, OGC Nos: 06-2451-2453, 06-2457-2466; 06-2473-2515; 06-2518-2520; 06-2522-2544; 06-2547-2577; 06­ 2579-2583; 06-2596, Order Revising Verified List of Impaired Waters, ¶ (d) (Jan. 3, 2007) (enclosed); Letter from James D. Giattina, Director, EPA Water Management Division, to Winston K. Borkowski, Hopping Green & Sams, (Oct. 16, 2006) ("EPA...has concluded that the low dissolved oxygen in Reed Creek above Lake Russell is due to natural conditions. Therefore, the EPA has determined that a TMDL is not needed for Reedy Creek above Lake Russell.").



# Comment ID 1785-1.001.027

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida Under EPA's "one size fits all" approach to water quality establishment, over one third of Florida's "reference streams", streams determined by the FDEP to be biologically healthy, will fail to meet the EPA's criteria. During a presentation to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3344Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the Florida Legislature, the Secretary of FDEP stated that over 8{)% of Florida's pristine water bodies would be considered impaired. The Secretary of the FDEP articulated that compliance with the EPA's criteria on a statewide level will "force an investment of billions of dollars without environmental benefits." 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.007

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies In the case of Florida, EPA has taken a statistical approach to developing nutrient criteria that assumed all of Florida's flowing waters could be grouped into four broad categories and that the behavior of all waterbodies in those categories will be the same. In order to establish numeric criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, EPA dismisses the fact that it was unable to establish a cause and effect relationship between nutrient levels and in-stream impacts. This lack of a simple cause and effect relationship between nutrient concentrations and water quality illustrates the variability and complexity in individual waterbody responses to nutrient loadings. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.018

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Several of the proposed Florida criteria values are not based on any documented biological impairment threshold. The range of conditions occurring in non-impaired waters, purportedly reflected by EPA's reference stream approach, does not demonstrate what the impairment threshold is. EPA's analysis fails to show that higher levels of nutrients, above the established reference condition criteria, would actually impair uses. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.019

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies In order to develop scientifically defensible nutrient criteria for Florida, the threshold level of nutrients needed to support the designated use of each waterbody must be identified using site-specific data. EPA's criteria, developed using the reference condition approach, provide no connection to the actual needs of Florida's waterbodies and ignore the biological conditions of those waters necessary to support beneficial uses. EPA's criteria, therefore, will not help Florida waters meet CWA goals and will instead complicate implementation of Florida's robust existing program. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.020

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3345Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Florida Criteria Rely on Flawed Reference Condition Approach Water quality experts, the SAB, and EPA's own scientists acknowledge that establishing a causal relationship between TN and TP levels and in-stream biological response variables is essential to developing meaningful nutrient criteria. In its EPEC draft report from January 2010 on EPA's use of statistical models for criteria derivation, the SAB noted 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 2010, at 4). The SAB elaborated stating that: 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. (SAB 2010, at 4) While the guidance that the SAB was commenting on focuses on stressor-response models, the concerns expressed by the SAB regarding the need to establish cause and effect apply equally to the reference criteria approach to establishing water quality standards. As noted above, EPA was not able to find "sufficient scientific support for" the use of stressor-response relationships in Florida waters for developing numeric nutrient criteria. EPA instead defaults to its reference condition/percentile-based approach to criteria derivation, which it used to develop national criteria guidance in the early 2000s. Since the late 1990s when it was first proposed for use in criteria derivation, NACWA has been a vocal critic of EPA's reference condition approach. As indicated in an independent review (Appendix 1) commissioned by NACWA for its comments on EPA's nutrient criteria technical guidance for river and streams, "...evaluation based on frequency distributions of primary variables from a variety of streams even within some defined ecoregion simply does not contain information about the causal relationships between those variables and the potential for impairment of biological integrity in any given stream or reach" (HydroQual 2000, at 3). The review also stated that "it is this philosophical departure from effects-based criteria setting that is most disagreeable and which creates a fundamental problem of credibility for the nutrient criteria setting process" (HydroQual 2000, at 1). Statistical percentiles of a data set only represent the properties of a data distribution. Without groundtruthing and further analysis of associated effects on beneficial uses, it is not possible to ascertain whether the given percentile value reported as a criteria will address an impairment. This was confirmed most recently in the SAB's report on EPA's use of statistical tools to derive nutrient criteria. EPA notes in the preamble to the Florida proposal that "[t]he reference condition approach relies on the identification of reference waters that exhibit minimal impacts from anthropogenic disturbance and are known to support designated uses. The thresholds of nutrient concentrations where designated uses are in attainment are calculated from a distribution of the available associated measurements of ambient nutrient concentrations at these reference condition sites." But FDEP has already raised concerns about EPA's selection of reference waters for the proposal. In its efforts

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3346Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams to propose numeric nutrient criteria, Florida had contemplated using a reference condition approach, but would have excluded more waters from its list of reference sites based on the influence of anthropogenic sources of nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.023

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies EPA's own guidance indicates that Agency scientists viewed reference condition-based criteria as "starting points" stating the "values for both causal (total nitrogen, total phosphorus) and biological and physical response (chlorophyll a, turbidity) variables represent a set of starting points for States and Tribes to use in establishing their own criteria in standards to protect uses" (EPA 2000, at 1). This statement was supported by the following additional disclaimer statements: "EPA expects that, in most cases, it will be necessary for States and Tribes to identify with greater precision the nutrient levels that protect aquatic life and recreational uses" (EPA 2000, at 5), and "[f]or example more sensitive uses may require more stringent values as criteria to ensure adequate protection. On the other hand, overly stringent levels of protection against the adverse effects of cultural eutrophication may actually fall below levels that represent the natural load of nutrients for certain waterbodies. In cases such as these, the level of nutrients specified may not be sufficient to support a productive fishery" (EPA 2000, at 5). If EPA's reference condition-based criteria are truly intended to be ‘starting-points', then the implications for Florida, where criteria could be used as end-of-pipe limits, are even more significant. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.024

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Proposed Reference Condition Criteria Are Not Statistically Defensible Though NACWA believes the reference condition approach should not be used to develop criteria, NACWA worked with utilities in Florida to evaluate EPA's application of the reference condition approach methodology in the Florida proposal (See Appendix 2). Based on a review of the information used to develop EPA's proposal, NACWA believes the criteria suffer from a lack of sufficient underlying data. The instream protective criteria for streams proposed by the EPA rely upon insufficient data necessary to obtain a reliable estimate of a protective threshold. Fully 70 percent of the stations utilized by the EPA have data for only one year and another 15 percent have data for only two years during the 19-year period covered by the data. As a result of having such limited time coverage, the temporal (year-to-year) variability cannot be reliably measured, and therefore this critical component is missing from EPA's threshold calculation. Instead, the EPA simply ignores the year-to-year variability by utilizing stations aggregated over years, which, for 70 percent of the stations, is a single observation in a single year. This does not produce statistically defensible criteria that can be used to judge whether an annual site mean is or is not out of compliance.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3347Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1788-1.001.002

Author Name: Fisher D. Organization: Osceola County Figure 2 illustrates the TN and TP "moving target" that results from year to year variability in levels of color, alkalinity, and chlorophyll-a. This presents difficulties for local governments to attempt to design water quality control projects that can accommodate the variable required reductions associate with these moving targets. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1 -Comparison between TN and TP impairment status determined using EPA proposed nutrient criteria (red areas are newly impaired, green areas are newly not-impaired) vs. FDEPs existing impairment status (areas in pink). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2 -Annual median TN and TP values for Lake Hatchineha, and target TN and TP values calculated using methodology outlined in EPA's NNC rule. See original comment letter. In an evaluation of the "newly impaired streams" under the EPA NNC, most exceeded the nitrogen concentration limit of 1.205 mg TN I liter. However, there is some evidence that in Osceola County, a potentially substantial amount of nitrogen may be natural in origin. For example, Figure 3 shows the relationship between TN and "color", which is an indicator of the amount of tannins or tannin-like substances in the water. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3 - Relationship between median values for total nitrogen (TN) and color (platinurn-cobalt units) for lakes within Osceola County. See original comment letter. While the data set shown in Figure 3 should not be interpreted as suggesting that sources of nitrogen in Osceola County are necessarily natural in origin, lakes with the highest concentrations of nitrogen tend to also have the highest levels of color. It is likely that swamps and/or freshwater marshes could be both a source of high levels of tannins to the waters of Osceola County, and also a source of nitrogen. In addition, available data suggest that phosphorus, not nitrogen, is the most likely limiting nutrient for lakes within Osceola County. This conclusion is reached based on the finding that the statistical relationship between the availability of phosphorus and levels of chlorophyll-a (an indicator of phytoplankton biomass) is much stronger than the statistical relationship between the availability of nitrogen and levels of chlorophyll-a. Overall, 52 percent of the variability in levels of chlorophyll-a can be explained by levels of phosphorus; nitrogen only explains 19 percent of the variability in levels of chlorophyll-a. While levels of nitrogen appear to vary in a positive and statistically significant manner with levels of color (p < 0.05) there is no evidence of a statistically significant relationship between levels of phosphorus and color. There is also a negative relationship between levels of color and levels of chlorophyll-a (Figure 4) suggesting a moderating affect of tannin-rich waters on light availability might exist. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4 - Relationship between median values for chlorophyll-a (ug / liter) and color (platinum-cobalt units) for lakes within Osceola County. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3348Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Taken together, these data suggest that wetland features within Osceola County (Le., swamps and marshes) could be an important source of tannin-rich waters that moderate the transformation of nutrients into phytoplankton biomass. These same wetland features could be an important source of the nitrogen within Osceola County waters, but not necessarily being a source of phosphorus or even indicative of excess algal growth. Therefore, the conclusion that streams in Osceola County are "impaired" by having an excess of nitrogen is problematic for the following reasons: 1) nitrogen may not be the nutrient of concern for algal growth, 2) nitrogen may be originating at least in part from natural wetland features, and 3) wetland drainage appears to play an important role in moderating algal growth, perhaps by reducing water clarity due to natural attenuation of light via tannins and tannin-like substances. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.034

Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams The section on stream nutrients describes how nutrient concentrations are not related to response variables in streams. If relating nutrients to plant conditions in streams does not work, then we do not believe that relating nutrients to macroinvertebrate conditions would be an improvement. Macroinvertebrate approaches were developed for organic (sewage) pollution and relationships to plant nutrients would be indirect at best. A causal mechanism would need a plant response as an intermediate step. No correlations between nutrient concentrations and SCI are mentioned, so we assume they do not exist. Because SCI is not directly related to nutrient concentrations, the focus on SCI-based reference conditions has doubtful merit.



# Comment ID 1794-1.001.043

Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior As a reference, or least-impacted, condition approach to stream criteria is compromised, more meaning may be found in data from streams not attaining uses because of nutrient-related conditions. We recommend that the data be evaluated before speculating on a way to set a threshold, but nutrient concentrations in the lower tail of the distribution of concentrations from impaired waters may work. This approach is similar to the way water criteria are set for toxicants. If there are insufficient data for this approach alone, a comparison between criteria set by upper bounds of reference streams and lower bounds of nutrient-impaired streams may be useful. If comparisons between reference streams and nutrient-impacted streams are not fruitful, then we recommend that EPA abandon the approach. Stream nutrient criteria derived to protect downstream lakes can have sound empirical bases, and it seems possible the same could be said for downstream estuaries. Reasoning that they should also protect the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3349Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams streams themselves, on similar grounds, is more sound than arguments about reference conditions where there is no underlying basis. 

# Comment ID 1797-1.001.031

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau

a. Lack of a Cause-and-Effect Relationship and Use of Reference Approach Contrary to conclusions made by the EPA and the FDEP, there is insufficient scientific support for the TP and TN criteria proposed by the EPA for flowing waters. As a result, the EPA and the FDEP have mischaracterized the value of the "relationships" shown between selected nutrients and response variables. A regression which demonstrates statistical significance does not, by itself, indicate a useful cause-andeffect relationship exists between two variables. Without predictable cause-andeffect relationships there is no evidence that nutrient reduction will result in predictable environmental improvement.[60] [60] Id. at 36. 

# Comment ID 1797-1.001.032

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau The EPA has developed a technical guidance manual[61] for the development of numeric nutrient criteria in streams which addresses 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 distribution; (2) use of predictive relationships; and (3) application and/or modification of established nutrient/algal thresholds.[62] Regardless of the approach, the technical guidance manual clearly states that it is critical to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between nutrients and an adverse response. The technical guidance manual states: "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."[63]

[61] Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual - Rivers and Streams, USEPA 2000. [62] Id. at 13. [63] Id.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3350Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1797-1.001.034

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau b. Use of Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) as Measures of and Predictors for Stream Health and Potential for Impairment The EPA's reliance on TN and TP as the basis for numeric nutrient criteria in flowing waters is flawed. The EPA's own analysis suggests, and the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), analysis clearly shows, that TN and TP concentrations in Florida's flowing waters are not predictive of stream health or stream impairments attributable to excessive nutrients.[66] In fact, NCASI's evaluation indicates that numerous variables such as percent canopy cover, stream color, turbidity, and other variables tend to have stronger associations with water quality response variables than TN or TP.[67] There is little scientific support for establishing TN and TP criteria in the range of concentrations being proposed. Future proposed criteria for flowing waters should at a minimum incorporate the effects of stream color and percent canopy cover.[68] If the goal of the EPA in the establishment of numeric nutrient criteria is to protect flowing waters from impairments caused by excessive nutrients, the EPA should focus its attention on nutrient forms that are bioavailable. A substantial body of literature exists showing that (a) only bioavailable forms of nutrients contribute to algal growth; (b) refractory forms of organic nitrogen and organic phosphorus often comprise a large portion of the TN and TP in flowing waters and point source discharges; and (c) the conversion of refractory forms of nitrogen and phosphorus to bioavailable nitrogen and phosphorus occur at rates that are too low to contribute to the impairment of flowing waters or downstream estuaries. The EPA's own analysis shows that inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus have a higher correlation to nutrient-related water quality exceedences than do TN and TP.[69]

[66] 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, 8. (To view the technical report in its entirety, refer to comments submitted by Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.). [67] Id at 36. [68] Id. [69] Id at 8.. 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.030

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District

c. Stream heterotrophy may provide a dose-response basis for in-stream criteria - EPA proposed numeric nutrient standards for streams based on a reference stream approach. EPA used this approach because the relationships

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3351Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams between nutrient concentrations and measures of biological condition are not strong and did not provide a sufficient quantitative basis for setting concentration limits. Regarding in-stream requirements, it is important also to consider the effects of nutrients on stream heterotrophy. Indeed, for many colored and shaded streams autotrophy is suppressed by light limitation. Evidence suggests that nutrient enrichment effects on stream heterotrophy are more consistent than those on autotrophy (Dodds, 2006). Consequently, effects on heterotrophy may provide a stronger dose-response relationship from which in-stream nutrient criteria could be derived. 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.031

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District d. Stream nutrient criteria should distinguish refractory nutrient forms from bioavailable forms - Determination of stream criteria should include consideration of the relative bioavailability of different nutrient forms. In an examination of stream nutrient loads in northeast Florida, Hendrickson et al. (2007) demonstrated that the bioavailability of organic nutrients, which typically comprise over 75% of stream nutrient concentrations, is highly dependent upon the nature of the land use within the watershed, and that refractory organic nutrient forms that predominate in runoff from forested and wetland land covers is rendered bioavailable at about 1/40th the rate of labile forms that predominate in runoff from urban and livestock land covers. Hopkinson et al. (1998) demonstrated that aromatic organic carbon typical of blackwater rivers is less bioavailable than that of streams dominated by organic carbon and nutrients of aliphatic "fresh" organic carbon typical of lacustrine rivers. Due to the deforestation in urbanized landscapes, it is not unusual for the replacement of refractory organic nutrients with inorganic and labile organic nutrients to result in an order of magnitude increase in total nutrient bioavailability to occur with no change in total nutrient concentration. These important distinctions cannot adequately be captured in a regional nutrient criteria such as proposed by EPA. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.002

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County SUMMARY OF KEY COMMENTS General
1. There are some significant issues relative to promulgation of numeric nutrient criteria that need to be addressed. Of specific concern is the high degree of variability found in the analyses performed to derive the criteria, and the lack of relationships between nutrients and biological response in streams. This has the potential for creating situations where healthy waterbodies are listed as impaired or impaired waterbodies are not listed. This is most prevalent through the application of the reference approach within the Stream IPVs. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.021

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3352Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County In-stream Protective Value [Section III.C(1) to III.C(5)]
1. The use of a reference approach for the determination of numeric nutrient criteria for streams has issues based upon the lack of a cause/effect relationship found in Florida's streams between biological health and nutrient concentrations. Streams typically do not show significant response to elevated nutrient levels and response parameters of significance (DO, algal growth, periphyton growth) are much more responsive to hydrology and local substrate. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.025

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 5. EPA in its development of reference stations eliminated sites that were listed for impairment for DO tied to nutrients, and stations that were listed for nutrient impairment, even if they showed healthy biology. This is not appropriate and potentially may skew the nutrient criteria. Many of Florida's waters have naturally low DO and high nutrients (blackwater, wetland dominated systems) and recent evaluation of FDEP listings shows the potential for healthy systems to be listed as impaired based upon low DO and perceived high nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.030

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 10. The reference approach scoring system can exhibit significant site variability. Several documents, including EPAHQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 , cite "nuisance" sources of variability such as season, year, repeat visits, lab sub-sampling as major complicating factors. TSD EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 found that the largest percentage of SCI variance was associated with differences in site characteristics from 1 visit to the next. The fact that year to year variation as well as seasonal variation at each site generally exhibited the most variation seems to imply that that not enough long-term data has been included. This is especially true within the Bone Valley region within Pasco County where very limited data were utilized. This is pointed out in more detail within the Specific Comments. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.031

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3353Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

11. Additional significant factors may also need to be included in the reference stream approach. For example: "SCIappeared to be correlated with watershed size because the most disturbed sites happened to be very small" (EPA-HQOW-2009-0596-0003.17 ). 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.034

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 14. "Healthy" streams are chosen using the stream condition index (SCI), however the SCI is cited as not used as a response indicator for the IPV determination. In the EPA Rule and TSD, the SCI is noted as a ‘weak correlation' due primarily to within-site variability. This is a similar case for TN and TP (i.e., weak correlations). TN and TP reductions are then proposed as the sole de facto causative parameters. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.036

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 16. Given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean, there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean that is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.103

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida’s Rivers and Streams III.C(1) Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams EPA is proposing numeric nutrient Statement: The following section describes the methodology used to derive the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for streams. EPA is soliciting comments and scientific data and information regarding these proposed criteria and their derivation. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure on p. 46: Criteria by Watershed Region. See original comment letter. Comment:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3354Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Overall the use of a reference approach is not sufficient for use in establishing numeric nutrient criteria for streams. The degree of variability and the significant impact of local hydrology on the expression of nutrient response is such that regional numbers will create significant errors in the determination of impaired and unimpaired waters, especially where in-stream values reside within the level of uncertainty. Comments made below regarding the application of the reference approach must be taken as directed at the application, and not supporting an alternate method of using the reference approach. No mention of a minimum required number of samples is mentioned while timing and seasonality are also important sampling factors. It is important for the use of the geometric mean that sufficient data are available to assure a true mean is established and that limited data do not create a false identification of impaired or unimpaired waters. More rigorous establishment of the statistical validity of the required number of samples should be provided by EPA. Regarding NWR delineations; the identification of regional TN criteria, which isolates the Bone Valley from the Peninsula Region, is not appropriate as the regionalization was associated with soil conditions reflective of Phosphorus issues not nitrogen. Additionally, the Suwannee River has been shown to have a phosphorous-rich geological formation along with the Alapaha and Santa Fe River drainages. In general, more NWRs are better and can be more tuned to local nutrient conditions. Previous studies (see EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0068) have proposed up to 47 regions (see below figure). Geology should be included in NWR delineations, although many other factors (e.g. wetlands, hydrology) also need to be included. Additionally, the abrupt and sometimes significant change in target across regional boundaries (TP Bone valley of 0.739 mg/L versus 0.107 mg/L for the Peninsula Region) do not seem reasonable as it is more likely that a gradual transition would occur and that the differences are a function of data from one specific region being compared to a much larger region with more degree of variability. The values near the border of the Bone Valley reflect overall conditions distant from that point. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3: TN Map from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0068. See original comment letter. Additionally, in reviewing EPA documentation related to NWRs, it seems the EPA has developed criteria based on EPA STORET stations and not on WBIDs. For example, in the Bone Valley, 22 STORET stations were used however this only represents 16 WBIDs. Up to 3 STORET stations were found in 1 WBID for Bone Valley (and there are likely higher ratios for other NWRs). Some weighting or averaging will be needed for multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.105

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Statement: As mentioned earlier, to effectively apply this well understood and documented science, EPA has recommended that nutrient criteria include both causal (e.g., TN and TP) and response variables (e.g., chlorophyll a and some measure of clarity) for water bodies.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3355Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Comment: Although EPA recognizes that a stressor-response causation is needed, the EPA identifies that they don’t have this and therefore don’t use it for the streams. Instead the EPA uses a method to define biologically healthy systems and then use the data from those systems to derive criteria. Additionally SCI shows only weak correlations to nutrients due to the influence of other factors (hydrology, canopy cover, turbidity, etc.). The EPA was not able to demonstrate “strong correlations” between stressors and responses, however is proposinglimits to stressors anyway. The principle criteria approach (i.e., reference approach) is based on many macroinvertebrate related variables (clingers, community structure, etc.) that combine to establish healthy stream ecosystems. The SCI approach is not defined by TN and TP only; however these are the only parameters (in conjunction with the nutrient watershed region) used to assess impairment for streams in the state. This is extremely reductive and not applicable given the complexity of river systems in Florida.


# Comment ID 1811-1.001.004

Author Name: Carpinone P. Organization: Tampa Electric Company TEC believes that any nutrient water quality criteria should at a minimum address actual impairment as a result of nutrients, which requires the incorporation of dose-response relationships between nutrient load and biological response. EPA's reference water approach does not and cannot address this cause and effect relationship. 

# Comment ID 1812-1.001.004

Author Name: Stephens N. Organization: Florida Minerals and Chemistry Council Association EPA has failed to meet basic standards for justification of its proposed criteria for streams. In fact, EPA acknowledges that there is no scientifically supportable stressor-response relationship that would justify numeric nutrient criteria. The effect of proposing criteria without that justification is to invert the burden of proof for criteria; any entity proposing SSACs, for example, would be required to demonstrate the absence of adverse responses at its proposed values when EPA (and DEP before it) has shown the futility of such an analysis. 

# Comment ID 1814-1.001.006

Author Name: Stephens N. Organization: Manufacturers Association of Florida EPA has failed to meet basic standards for justification of its proposed criteria for streams. In fact, EPA acknowledges

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3356Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams that there is no scientifically supportable stressor-response relationship that would justify numeric nutrient criteria. The effect of proposing criteria without that justification is to invert the burden of proof for criteria; any entity proposing SSACs, for example, would be required to demonstrate the absence of adverse responses at its proposed values when EPA (and DEP before it) has shown the futility of such an analysis. 

# Comment ID 1834-1.001.005

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Some of the more critical technical issue identified in the enclosures to this letter include:

• The reference condition approach used in the proposed EPA Rule for streams and canals is overly simplistic, will result in inappropriate and arbitrary criteria, and will lead to inefficient pollution control efforts. 

# Comment ID 1834-1.001.007

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

• If the reference condition approach is used, it should be modified to require confirrnation of an actual impairment of a designated use (through an appropriate response variable(s) for the waterbody in question) before a site is considered impaired, rather than allowing a site to be defined as impaired based solely on nutrient concentrations. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.001

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Introduction Comments on the Proposed Rule are divided into three categories, corresponding to: 1.The inappropriateness of the Reference Condition approach 2.Errors and omissions made in calculating criteria for streams and South Florida canals 3.The overly protective nature of the proposed downstream protection values (DPVs) 4.Comments on the alternative approaches considered Specific comments in each of these categories are provided below. Inappropriateness of the Reference Condition Approach

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3357Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The Reference Condition Approach used in the Proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Rule for streams and canals is overly simplistic and will result in inappropriate and arbitrary criteria resulting in inefficient pollution control efforts. This overall comment is supported by the following individual comments: 1.The reference condition approach for streams and canals as applies for the Proposed Rule combines data from widely disparate time frames and sites in a manner in which protective levels cannot be defined; 2.The reference condition approach as applied by EPA will result in an unacceptably large number of unimpaired sites being falsely listed as impaired, leading to a highly inefficient use of pollution control efforts; 3.The Process for Selecting Reference Sites are not Suitable for Assessing Nutrient Impairment; 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.006

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 1. Reference Condition Approach Combines Data from Widely Disparate Time Frames and Sites in a Manner in which Protective Levels Cannot be Defined EPA's development of statewide criteria on an expedited schedule led to the abandonment of their own guidance and consequent grouping of data from broad dissimilar sites. This approach results in two problems: 1) EPA was unable to identify a significant causal relationship between nutrient concentrations and resulting support of designated uses; and. 2) The concentrations observed at the reference site vary over orders of magnitude making selection of a single regional "protective" value impossible without being overly protective at many locations. The purpose of water quality criteria is to maintain pollutant concentrations at levels below those that would prevent attainment of a designated use. These criteria should be based upon existing site-specific determinations of protective concentrations (such as those derived from the appropriate TMDL program), as opposed to criteria derived by inference from wide ranges of reference data. Many site-specific factors (e.g. hydraulics, shading, water color) can affect the relationship between nutrient concentrations and the designated use. When data from a large number of sites are grouped together, the range in the influence factors can confound the development of direct relationships between nutrients and designated uses. EPA's own Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual - Rivers and Streams recommends: "A two-phased approach to system classification is prescribed here. Initially, stream classification is based primarily (though not exclusively) on physical parameters associated with regional and site specific characteristics, including climate, geology, substrate features, slope, canopy cover, retention time of water, discharge and flow continuity, system size, and channel morphology. The second phase involves further classifying stream systems by nutrient gradient (based upon measured nutrient concentrations and algal biomass). Trophic state classification, in contract, focus primarily on chemical and biological parameters including concentrations of nutrients, algal biomass as chlorophyll a (chlorophyll), and turbidity, and may also include land use and other human disturbance parameters. The additional sub-classification of streams by nutrient condition, in conjunction with an understanding of dose-response relationships between algae and nutrients, helps define the goals for establishing nutrient criteria."

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3358Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams For example, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has demonstrated that natural factors (the proportion of wetlands and water color) explain a large portion of the variance in Total Nitrogen (TN) in benchmark streams that have verifiably attained their designated use. ii In cases where shoreline or riparian habitat has been highly degraded, attainment of the designated use has no relation to nutrient levels. Biological health responds to climatic and other natural cycles and changes in available habitat. [iii] Figure 1 and Figure 2 show that lack of a correlation between the SCI and total phosphorus (TP) and TN concentrations in a wide range of reference and non-reference Florida streams. The inability to define a cause-effect relationship between nutrient concentrations and environmental condition is a critical weakness, as it prevents EPA from accurately defining nutrient concentrations that are protective of the designated use. [iv] In the absence of this cause/effect relationship the establishment of any numeric criteria purporting to protect the biological health or maintain the designated use of a water body is arbitrary. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Relationship between the SCI and TP in Florida streams (from FDEP May 5, 2009). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. Relationship between SCI and TN in Florida streams (from FDEP May 5, 2009). See original comment letter.

The absence of a cause - effect relationship necessitates the use of the reference condition approach, which is the least rigorous of all approaches for nutrient criteria development. Florida has a robust and contemporary data set on nutrients and environmental conditions as any state in the nation. If the conclusion is made by EPA that these data are insufficient to support an approach that considers site-specific conditions, it sets a dangerous precedent for all other states to abandon sound science and use the least rigorous approach to nutrient criteria development. The stream criteria proposed by EPA rely upon sufficient data necessary to obtain defensible estimate of protective criteria. Seventy percent of the stations utilized by EPA have data for only one year and another 15% have data for only two years during the 19-year period covered by the stream data. Thus, 85% of the stations cover less than 11% of the sampling time period. As a result of having such limited time coverage, the temporal (year-to-year) variability cannot be reliably measured for the great majority of the stations, and therefore this critical component is missing from EPA's criteria calculations. Instead, EPA simply ignores the year-to-year variability by utilizing stations aggregated over years, which, for 70% of the stations, is a single observation in a single year; and for another 15% of the stations, the average consists of only two observations. This does not produce statistically defensible criteria and assessment methods that can be used to judge whether an annual site mean is or is not out of compliance. [v] 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.008

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The EPA also proposed an alternative methodology developed by the FDEP with a similar insufficient data issue. It utilizes data aggregated at the waterbody-year level by averaging over stations and sampling events. With sufficient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3359Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams data, a statistical method that considers the spatial (station-to-station) and temporal (year-to-year) variability could be used to develop a reliable criterion assuming the reference site approach is employed. However, using aggregated data that ignores the natural variability inherent in the data will not reliably measure nutrient levels needed to regulate water quality at a given station.[v] The period of record used by EPA for canals (greater than 35 years) creates significant problems of data comparability and therefore interpretation. Analytical methods and field data collection techniques have changed substantially over this period of time. Data ranging back over three decades should only have been used after careful examination of the data for major differences in Minimum Detection Limits (MDLs), field sampling methodologies and intervals, and field/lab QA and digestion methods. Earlier digestion methods were not a thorough in liberating P and N from their matrices as present-day methods, resulting in lower relative values. Also earlier data would have been analyzed without the use of field duplicates, spikes, lab duplicates, reference samples, high and low check standards, and continuing check standards. In addition, EPA combined both uncorrected and corrected chlorophyll data, resulting in a chlorophyll data set included non-comparable data. Inclusion of the earlier data results in a database that is more heterogeneous and difficult to interpret, and therefore cause-effect relationships are far less reliable. Criteria based upon this period of record are impossible to defend and led EPA to arbitrary criteria. The intermingling of data from incongruent sites over an extended period of time resulted in an extremely large range of reference concentrations. Even after subdividing data by "Nutrient Watershed Regions," observed nutrient concentrations for unimpaired South Florida canals ranged several fold, and reference concentrations for Florida streams varied 80-100 fold. Selection of a single Watershed Region "protective" concentration value as a criterion from an extremely wide range of reference conditions is arbitrary. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.014

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 3. The Process for Selecting Reference Sites is not Suitable for Assessing Nutrient Impairment The approach used by EPA to select reference sites is seriously flawed and therefore arbitrary. For example EPA's analysis indicate no relationship between SCI and TN or TP across reference streams (streams that had adequate habitat to support a diverse macroinvertebrate assemblage and had low development intensity in the watershed) (EPA 2010 TSD Chapter 2 Figure 2-34 and Figure 2-35).



# Comment ID 1834-4.001.039

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3360Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Furthermore, stream reference sites were selected in part on whether sites scored well on the SCI, with insufficient consideration of whether anthropogenic sources were affecting nutrient concentrations in the stream. This approach to defining stream reference sites is inconsistent with EPA (2000) guidance on nutrient criteria development cited in the proposed rule that states, "Reference systems should be minimally disturbed and should have primary parameter (i.e. TN, TP, chlorophyll, and turbidity) values that reflect this condition." viii. This approach used by FDEP to screen sites through field observations in order to confirm they were minimally disturbed is superior to the approach used in the proposed rule, EPA excluded sites with suitability high SCI scores for use as a reference site if they were listed as impaired for nutrients or DO. The presence of naturally low DO is common in many Florida streams, and low DO concentrations should not be used as sufficient evidence to reject the use of a stream as a reference site. 

# Comment ID 1835-1.001.003

Author Name: Nieto G. Organization: Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto on behalf of New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta Corporation 1. EPA's reference site approach is arbitrary and capricious. EPA's application of the reference site approach to derive the numeric values and EPA's methodology are arbitrary and capricious. The reference site approach, as applied in this rulemaking, has no causal relationship with the biological response in the water body. Furthermore, as explained in the Technical Comment Paper, EPA failed to follow its own technical guidance on how to properly derive water quality standards using the reference site approach. EPA has, in fact, wholly abandoned its longstanding policy of requiring a causal link between the proposed criteria and biological responses, in favor of setting numeric values with no correlation to its impact to the water body.[2] This approach is,additionally, based upon a fundamentally flawed statistical methodology that will yield an inordinately high rate of falsepositive errors and resulted in statistically indefensible criteria. In its 2000 Technical Guidance Manual for Nutrient Criteria in Rivers and Streams (July 2000), EPA clearly states that causal or predictive relationships between nutrients and biomass are required to identify the critical or threshold concentrations that produce nuisance algal biomass.[3] More recently, EPA has updated its 1998 National Nutrient Strategy Document, once again supporting a causal link when establishing numeric nutrient criteria.[4] [2] EPA's approach in the Nutrient Rule is contrary to the established guidance documents cited below and contained in our Joint Submittal to the Administrative Record. [3] EPA, Technical Guidance, Rivers and Streams, July 2000, pg 76. [4] EPA Letter re: Nutrient Strategy, dated May 25, 2007. 

# Comment ID 1837-1.001.013

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS Administration, Inc., and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. doing business as PCS Phosphate- White

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3361Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Springs The use of reference waters as the basis for establishment of numeric nutrient criteria is not scientifically defensible. EPA selected certain waterbodies on the basis of a biological metric (SCI> 40) that has not been subjected to peer review. These biological metrics were done on a very limited basis, but then all available water quality data for those locations were used to calculate criteria on a regional basis. A simple factual situation shows the arbitrary nature of this process: a waterbody with an SCI of 50 might have had total phosphorus or total nitrogen values far greater than the proposed criteria, would be a reference water because of the SCI, but would also be determined to be impaired for nutrients under the proposed criteria. This is a logically absurd result, and is indicative of the invalidity of the reference waters approach, no matter how the reference waters are selected. 

# Comment ID 1885.001.013

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County

- Based on DEP's research periphyton on streams may be the most likely response variable for nutrient pollution. EPA should conduct the research necessary to find this or another response variable in streams. 

# Comment ID 1888-1.001.003

Author Name: Manson D. Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A. on behalf of the Wiregrass Ranch Inc. Wiregrass is in the headwaters of Trout Creek an intermittent blackwater stream that derives its flow from pop-off wetlands located on the property. These streams only flow during rainy periods. The rainy season in Pasco County is typically in the summer months which of course are also the hottest time of year. EPA has labored under a false assumption that since these water bodies sometimes have low dissolved oxygen levels that there must be a nutrient issue. However, the combination of the heat and the detritus from the wetlands naturally lead to the lower dissolved oxygen levels. No amount of landscape management will alter these dissolved oxygen levels. Certainly, there is no correlation between man-made nitrogen and phosphorus loading to this water body and the low dissolved oxygen levels in Trout Creek on the Wiregrass property. 

# Comment ID 1894.001.004

Author Name: Fields G. Organization: City of Lakeland

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3362Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Additionally, City staff monitoring the development of nutrient criteria by both EPA and the Florida DEP have noted a number of fundamental technical deficiencies which demand EPA's reconsideration and force the City to submit these comments and contest the proposed rule. These concerns include the following. Stream Criteria It is the City's understanding that, like the Florida DEP, EPA was unable to derive a cause-and-effect relationship between a given nutrient concentration and a reliable measure of a biological response within Florida streams. In other words, EPA was unable to demonstrate negative impacts to Florida streams that could be related to a particular numeric criterion when the criterion was expressed as a concentration of total nitrogen or total phosphorus. Failing at this effort, EPA employed a reference water approach whereby the agency took nutrient data from waters that appeared to have good stream biology and looked at that data on a graph called a frequency distribution. EPA drew a line on the graph below which 75% of data would fall and used that point on the frequency distribution as the criterion. For total nitrogen, the number was 1 .798 mg/1 for the Bone Valley Region; total phosphorus was 0.739 mg/1. It is unclear what these numbers mean. EPA noted that it could not demonstrate a particular concentration of total nitrogen or total phosphorus that corresponded to measurable biological harm in Florida streams. If that is true, the TN and TP criteria derived using the reference water approach are not related to any predictable harmful effects in Florida streams. Consequently, it would seem that nutrient concentrations could be much higher than those concentrations proposed by EPA without causing any harm to a particular stream . Conversely, because the numbers do not relate to a known in-stream response, a particular stream may experience negative impacts at a TN or TP concentration below the proposed criteria. In essence, once EPA concluded that it could not establish a relationship between nutrients and harmful effects in stream, the agency established that it could not derive a numeric criterion for TP or TN in Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 1920-1.001.014

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice APPLICATION OF EPA'S REFERENCE STREAM METHODOLOGY
35. I have reviewed EPA's peer-reviewed guidance document that sets out methodologies that can be used to set numeric nutrient criteria in flowing waters. USEPA, Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and Streams (July 2000). [18]
36. The Manual's reference reach methodology is a scientifically valid approach for developing numeric nutrient criteria.
37. It is my professional judgment that EPA guidance on selection of reference reaches was properly applied in the study attached as Exhibit D (Study Part I: Reference Reaches); Exhibit E (Study Part II: Application of Reference Reach Methodology) and that the benchmark sites excluded from use as reference reaches were properly excluded for legitimate land use or water quality data concerns.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3363Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Original comment letter contains additional information in Exhibit D, Study Part I: Reference Reaches. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Exhibit E, Study Part II: Application of Reference Reach Methodology. See original comment letter.
38. It is my professional judgment that application of EPA's reference reach methodology to the remaining FDEP benchmark sites is a valid approach to developing numeric nutrient criteria for Florida rivers and streams. It also provides a way of examining the reliability of FDEP's modified approach and provides another line of evidence that can be used to insure the development of a suitably protective criterion.

[18] http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/index.html;


# Comment ID 1920-1.001.024

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 41. It is my professional judgment that EPA guidance on the selection of water quality data was properly applied in the attached study and that EPA guidance on application of the frequency distribution approach was followed and properly applied to the data selected for this study. 

# Comment ID 1920-1.001.025

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 50. The proposed nutrient limits for freshwater streams set forth in the study were established in compliance with EPA's peer-reviewed guidance documents and provide an additional line of evidence that should be used by EPA in finalizing numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in Florida. 

# Comment ID 1923.001.006

Author Name: Knight R. Organization: City of Winter Park 7. The stream rule does not seem to take into account the variation in lotic ecosystems that exist in Florida. Many

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3364Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Florida streams are intermittent and dependent on rainfall. Even in permanent streams, flow rates are highly variable from season to season and year to year. Streams that flow through wooded swamps in Florida are often naturally low in pH and dissolved oxygen, and many flow over sediments or soils that are high in phosphorus (some of our sandy soils are naturally high in P, and some of the P-laden organic sediments in our flowing swamps are the results of millennia of biomass accumulation). In these conditions phosphorus can be exported (naturally) from the sediments and cause the stream criteria to be exceeded, or the model to predict that a downstream water body will be impaired. There is already a large strain placed on state and local budgets dealing with manmade nutrient loads. If resources are spent trying to reduce loads caused by natural conditions it would seriously impact the ability of local governments to focus on the real problems and to effect improvements in our lakes and streams. 

# Comment ID 2018-6.001.013

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa 30. EPA should substantiate their claim that there are no approaches currently available to infer any dose-response relationships in Florida streams. At minimum, it would be beneficial to provide descriptive plots that identify the potential limiting nutrient in these streams and the potential physical and biological factors that interact with nutrient loadings and concentrations to result in adverse conditions that threaten the full achievement of aquatic life use designations in Florida streams. This information was presented in some detail in the discussion of nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes in the EPA's technical support documents but was absent for Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.011

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries In deriving stream criteria, EPA admitted that it was unable to establish a relationship between nutrient concentrations and biological response variables but then just flipped the x and y axes to derive criteria by looking at nutrient concentrations that corresponded to a threshold biological response (SCI score). EPA derived the stream criteria using geometric means but assesses attainment of the criteria applying an arithmetic mean. EPA set 6 ug/l chlorophyll-a as its criterion for clear acidic lakes, in lieu of the 9 ug/l derived by the Florida DEP, although the EPA chlorophyll-a target is not linked to an adverse biological response but to meet "natural background" which does not exist within Florida's surface water classification system or as a Clean Water Act designated use. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.018

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3365Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

2. Stream Criteria - Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(2)
2.1 Instream Protective Values _.Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(2)(i)
2.1.1 Reference Water Methodology - Generally The reference water approach is arbitrary by design. Nutrient data from waters representing biologically healthy water bodies (SCI ~ 40) were plotted on a frequency distribution and a line was drawn at a particular "percentile." The nutrient concentration corresponding to that certain percentile was declared to be the applicable criterion. The selection of the percentile is totally arbitrary. The resulting concentration declared to be the applicable criterion is equally arbitrary. Waters with nutrient concentrations above the line drawn on the graph exceed the newly declared criterion. This means that a proportion of the biologically healthy reference waters now exceed the criterion and are considered impaired under § 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. These healthy watersliterally used to set the criterion-must now, by law, be "restored" to meet the arbitrary (and lower) concentration. More importantly, the concentration derived from the line on the graph is meaningless in the real world. No cause and effect relationship can be derived from the frequency distribution. The State of florida, with one of the largest nutrient databases in the nation, could not isolate a sufficient relationship between the concentration of nitrogen or phosphorus and biological response variables from which meaningful numeric criteria could be derived (dose-response approach[13] EPA also failed in establishing the requisite dose-response relationship from which appropriate criteria could be derived. Fed.Reg 4194. Significantly, EPA's reference water approach attempts to apply a univariate approach to multivariate systems. The reference water approach attempts to simply reverse the variables (from the doseresponse approach) and then claim a relationship. Logic and statistics dictate that if there is no demonstrable relationship between nutrient concentration and biological response variables one cannot simply reverse the analysis and declare a relationship between the response variables and the observed nutrient concentrations. Consequently, the Instream Protection Values (IPVs) as proposed by EPA are not protective of designated use. The IPVs do not and cannot provide any information as to the propensity of nutrients to manifest a biological response in a given waterbody. Water quality criteria "must be based on sound scientific rationale" and "scientifically defensible methods" and "contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use." 40 C.F.R. § 131.11. EPA's reference water approach is not a sound scientific rationale nor is the method scientifically defensible. The fact that EPA (and DEP) were forced to resort to a reference water approach-an approach that does not and cannot relate nutrient concentrations to observable biological response parameters-is an admission that the development of statewide (or regional) numeric nutrient criteria for the State of Florida in not technically or scientifically feasible. Where it is not feasible to establish numeric criteria, the States may rely upon narrative water quality criteria. 40 C.F.R. 131.11(b)(2). [13] However, Florida's nutrient data was not collected for the purpose of deriving criteria but is a conglomeration of data taken for a variety of reasons and under a variety of circumstances by numerous agencies and entities. In short, the State has lot of data but the utility of that data for establishing criteria is, as pointedly shown with streams, of minimal value.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3366Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 2233-1.001.019

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 2.1.2 Reference Water Methodology - As Applied By EPA In addition to the deficiencies inherent to a reference water approach, the reference water approach, as applied by EPA is rendered meaningless due to significant data deficiencies. Additionally, the methods used to derive the criteria are inconsistent with the methods use to assess compliance. As discussed above, a year of monthly data from numerous sampling sites would provide only a blurred snapshot of the ambient conditions within a lake or stream. EPA's proposed criteria are based upon one or two data points per station with compliance measures so restrictive that the instream target necessary to meet the criterion is a fraction of the proposed instream value.[14]
2.1.2.1 Data DeficienciesEPA chose to use a passing Stream Condition Index (SCI) score of 40 to filter tens of thousands of data pointsavailable in the State's database-to 521 sites for TN and 525 sites for TP.[15] The data were selected from a 6-year period of record: 2004 through 2009. A geometric mean was calculated for TN and TP for each site and the means were distributed to correspond to EPA's four nutrient regions. The 75th percentile of a lognormal distribution of spatially distributed geometric means was used to derive the proposed numeric criteria. This approach is fatally flawed. As noted by the Florida DEP in its recent review: As specified in Table 2-4 of EPA's Technical Support Document, the number of site means used to derive the criteria ranged from 17 in the North Central region to 131 in the Panhandle region for TP, with a similar range from 17 to 128 for TN. It is also important to note that there was an average of only two nutrient measurements over the entire six year period that were used to generate each site mean. Additionally, for the panhandle nutrient region, more that 75% of the site geometric means that were intended to characterize the nutrient regime at the sites were based on a single measurement during the six year period. In the other nutrient regions, from 45% to 59% of the site geometric means were generated from a single measurement during the six year period. In summary, EPA's proposed streams criteria were actually based on very few measurements and those data were inadequate to characterize the temporal variability of the systems.[16] (Emphasis added). In short, there is no scientific basis for EPA's instream criteria. A geometric mean based upon one data point is a mathematical impossibility. A mean of two data points over a six year period is meaningless for assessing ambient conditions in a waterbody much less for deriving scientifically defensible nutrient criteria for those same waters. [14] Numeric nutrient criteria must be supportive of designated uses but need not be any more strict; EPA disregards this basic premise and seems to support a mindset of "if less is good, even less must be better." Such an approach is

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3367Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams not only arbitrary, it results in corrective measures for natural and background water quality conditions, and it forces expenditures for environmental projects that do not provide added environmental benefit. This is especially true when addressing nutrients, some level of which is necessary for a balanced aquatic community. [15] Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and Springs/Clear Streams, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, March 12,2010. [16] Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and Springs/Clear Streams, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, March 12,2010, at pages 39, 40. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.021

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 2.1.3 SAB Report EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) recently released its draft report summarizing its review of EPA's Empirical Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation. Many of the panel's comments are directly applicable to EPA's proposed nutrient criteria for Florida waters and support CF's comments directed at EPA's rule. Key among the SAB concerns, and relevant to these comments, is the failure to establish cause and effect and the reliance upon correlation where the correlation may not reflect causation. Relevant comments from the SAB[19] include:

• Large uncertainties in the stressor-response relationship and the fact that causation is neither directly addressed nor documented indicate that the stressor-response approach using empirical data cannot be used in isolation to develop technically defensible water quality criteria that will "protect against environmental degradation by nutrients." (at 37; see also 22)

• A clear framework for statistical model selection is needed. This framework should include: 1) an assessment of whether analysis indicate that the stressorresponse approach is appropriate; 2) selection of criteria to establish models of cause/effect and direct/indirect relationships between stressors and responses; 3) consideration of model relevance to known mechanisms and existing conditions; 4) establish of biological relevance; and 5) ability to predict probability of meeting designated use categories. (at 30; Executive Summary at xiv)

• [T]he final document should clearly state that statistical associations may not be biologically relevant and do not prove cause and effect. (at 2) 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. (at 4); The Guidance needs to clearly indicate that the empirical stressor-response approach does not result in cause-effect relationships; it only indicates correlations that need to be explored further. (at 39) Once again, EPA does not claim to have established a cause-and-effect relationship for its stream criteria, canal criteria or its downstream protective values. Relying upon work completed by the Florida DEP, EPA claims to have relied upon a cause-and-effect relationship is establishing lake criteria. However, as noted by the SAB, breakpoint analysis alone is not definitive.

• The use of non-parametric change point analysis and discontinuous regression analysis must be associated with biological significance and the designated uses to be protected by numeric nutrient criteria.... However, although these

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3368Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams methods may be able to identify and characterize breakpoints, such breakpoints may not necessarily have any biological significance, nor will they necessarily be related to designated uses that are to be protected by numeric nutrient criteria. Use of these methods must be associated with designated uses. (at 22)

• The Committee emphasizes the importance of choosing the biological endpoints (i.e., response variables) that respond specifically to nutrients. We note that responses of benthic indices can be related to many types of stress. We question why periphyton would not be a better receptor to measure. (at 15)

• The examples provided in the Guidance generally do not demonstrate a strong nutrient stressor linkage to beneficial use impairment. The stream examples show very weak correlations that have high levels of uncertainty, and lump data from distinctly different ecosystems where multiple factors in addition to nutrients will contribute to biotic responses. (at 14,15)

• In order to be scientifically defensible, empirical methods must take into consideration the influence of other variables. .,.The statistical methods in the Guidance require careful consideration of confounding variables before being used as predictive tools... , Without such information, nutrient criteria developed using bivariate methods may be highly inaccurate. (at 22)

• 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 water bodies. (at 36,37) Numeric nutrient criteria developed and implemented without consideration of site specific conditions can lead to management actions that may have negative social and economic and unintended environmental consequences without additional environmental protection. (at 37) Specific to streams, the SAB noted:

• Single variable stressor-response relationships (e.g., those derived using the simple linear regression approach discussed in the Guidance) that explain a substantial amount of variation are likely to be uncommon for most aquatic ecosystems (in particular, streams). (at 10); As previously discussed, relationships for streams may be more complex than for lakes and must account for multiple stressors/conditions and/or stream 'types' or conditions, and then be applied appropriately. (at 23) The SAB suggested that load, rather than concentration, may be appropriate.

• 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. Plant biomass is driven by nutrient supply rates (i.e., nutrient mass loads). Ambient nutrient concentrations are not necessarily good surrogates for nutrient mass loads. Relationships between nutrient mass loads and ambient nutrient concentrations are highly system-specific and depend on many factors including inflows, hydrology, bathymetry, sediment-water exchanges and chemical-biological processes. Consequently, there may be many systems for which nutrient concentrations will not be appropriate stressor variables. For such systems it may be more appropriate, and scientifically defensible, to use sitespecific mechanistic models incorporating loading to determine the nutrient controls required to attain designated uses. (at 11) In sum, EPA's SAB has advised the agency that its methodologies are not sufficient as set forth in Empirical

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3369Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Derivation. The SAB report corroborates the comments provided herein; no single method may be used to derive scientifically defensible criteria-especially on a statewide or regional level. [19] Adapted from initial comments prepare for The Fertilizer Institute by John Hall, Hall and Hall, Washington, D. C. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.034

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries

• The arbitrary deadlines have forced the Florida DEP and EPA to abandon doseresponse methodology for the reference stream or benchmark approach which, while recommended by EPA, is facially invalid; by choosing a "percentile" using the reference stream approach, a proportion of the best waters are deemed impaired and must be scheduled for restoration. Forcing the restoration of minimally disturbed reference waters is arbitrary and capricious on its face.

• The reference stream approach is not based upon the relationship between nutrients and biological response variables but assumes that a certain concentration must be protective if no negative biological response is observed at that concentration. If the Florida DEP data does not establish a relationship between nutrient concentration and biological response, it cannot be used in reverse to assume a relationship between the lack of a biological response and nutrient concentration. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.054

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 3. USEPA does not use a cause-effect relationship for streams. The agency applies a reference stream approach, although there is no demonstrable relationship between nutrients and the response variable used - i.e., the biological community based on Florida's Stream Condition Index (SCI); 4. The resulting reference stream approach, used when the Agency cannot demonstrate a valid scientific response between stressor and response variable, thus, is not scientifically valid. It is grossly restrictive in that it declares some reference streams impaired when they are in fact healthy. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.070

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries The SAB further pointed out that single stressor relationships explaining a large portion of the variability in the data are likely uncommon for most ecosystems, particularly streams. In fact, this is exactly what USEPA found in Florida

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3370Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams streams; the USEPA acknowledged in 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(2) that it was not able to demonstrate an "available approach" between indicators (chlorophyll a) and TN or TP concentrations. The major reasons for the lack of correlation are cited in the paragraphs above. The SAB recommended that EPA use multivariate methods or mechanistic methods, where the direct relationships are more successfully modeled. However, USEPA has chosen to pursue an unsupported surrogate method, the reference stream approach, instead of pursuing methods that will develop scientifically robust and appropriate applications, such as mechanistic models. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.078

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries The FDEP dataset used by USEPA did not lead to any scientifically justifiable relationship between nutrient levels and SCI response in streams. This criticism was echoed by FDEP in its review of the Agency's proposal as well (FDEP, 2010e). In FDEP's analysis, nutrients (TN and TP) alone explain only a minute fraction of the observed variance in the best available dataset of streams based on use of the Stream Condition Index as a measure of impairment. Several reasons the FDEP attributes to this outcome include: 1. Communities in streams and rivers do not respond specifically to nutrient concentrations but to loads (as opposed to toxicants), and, as pointed out by the SAB above, point-in-time or point-in-space kinetics do not adequately characterize these systems, nor do they relate, as the data used by USEPA testify to, any demonstrated response variables. 2. The proposal does not adequately classify the types of streams or the geological regions from where they occur, which also leads to a large portion of the variability in the dataset. USEPA should classify the stream systems into finer subsystems as to physiography, geology ecology and existing use before deriving any applicable nutrient criteria. 3. The regulatory approach considers only TN and TP and not inorganic forms. Eutrophication responses in many Florida wetland and submerged macrophyte dominated systems respond to inorganic forms and not organic nutrient forms. 4. Single stressor relationships fail to account for other variables (e.g., light [shading, turbidity, color], substrate, grazers, etc.) which all contribute to the observed variability in the dataset, and these should be taken into account in the classification scheme as indicated by the SAB in their comments. 5. Mechanistic approaches are available; these were pursued by USEPA but the results were ignored. These approaches need to be considered because they may point to additional factors affecting eutrophication response, including light, grazers, habitat and other limitations with have more to do with landscape changes than nutrients. It has been stated by the USEPA, FDEP and many commenter's to this rule that macroinvertebrates in streams do not respond to nutrients in a simple dose-response manner. In fact, if one looks at the Reckhow model (Figure 1), it becomes clear that macroinvertebrates are several steps down the chain from primary producer response: they do not respond to nutrients but to organic matter and redox conditions. This was adequately demonstrated by the FDEP in their studies and has been echoed by many in public and in written comments. SER analyzed the all stream data (Stressor ID SCI2007 Datafile 09-23-09) obtained from FDEP using step-wise discriminant analysis as an exploratory exercise. This multivariate statistical procedure extracts classification variables that can be used to separate observations on the basis of the multivariable dataset. In stepwise mode, it removes variables sequentially in order of the variables that contribute most to the overall variance in the multivariable dataset. It then recalculates the remaining variation and then repeats the process until all the variables contributing significantly to the overall data variation are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3371Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams removed. This results in an ordered list of the variables that explain statistically significant portions of the variability in the dataset. The results of this procedure to explain the variation in the SCI performed by SER are presented in the following Table: Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Results of Stepwise discriminante analysis to determine response of the SCI to physiochemical parameters in the "SCI" FDEP database. Note that none of the nutrient variables (highlighted) have been included in the analysis, which indicates they do not explain a statistically significant portion of the multivariate dataset. See original comment letter. It is significant to note that no nutrient variables were selected by the statistical analysis. This corroborates the FDEP findings that nutrients explained less than 10% of the variation in the dataset. In fact, nutrients do not explain a statistically significant portion of the variance in the dataset and thus do not contribute to the SCI response according to the discriminant model. The resulting discriminant functions correctly classify the about 61% of the sites according to the SCI database (Table 2). The classification functions selected 11 physico-chemical variables that explain the statistically significant variation in the dataset. The greatest influence on the dataset is conductivity, which is an indicator of ionic strength, which along with pH, varies with geology, hydrology (i.e. meteorology) and proximity to coastal areas. The second strongest set of variables involves habitat factors, including substrate and streamflow, which likely indicate structural changes in the streams due to landscape changes. The fourth variable selected was dissolved oxygen, which is related to organic content. All of these variables are well known to aquatic biologists as controlling factors for macroinvertebrate community composition. It is also significant to note, perhaps, that color showed no influence on the SCI outcome. Although the selected variables collectively contribute to the variance in the all streams database, they are unable to fully discriminate between the SCI categories with 100% confidence. The output from the analysis is presented in Appendix B. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. Results of stepwise discriminant analysis of the SCI database. The overall model based on 11 variables correctly predicted the SCI category 61.5% of the time overall and did not include any nutrient variable. The analysis performed worst for Category 1 SCI locations, correctly predicting only 20.9 % of the cases correctly. See original comment letter. The proposed numeric nutrient criteria were derived without a valid stressor-response relationship and therefore are seriously flawed. A simple univariate relationship does not adequately describe ecosystem responses to multivariate factors controlling Florida's aquatic ecosystems. In the opinion of SER, the proposed numeric nutrient criteria are not simply overly restrictive; they are scientifically unsupportable. We recommend that either a multivariate approach or a mechanistic approach be used to classify the streams according to region and physiography and to derive appropriate methods for defining when these systems are impaired. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.080

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Reference Stream Approach Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(2)(i)

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3372Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The reference stream approach utilized by USEPA is not valid because it incorrectly attempts to classify all streams within a diverse set of regions, geology and ecology 011 the assumption that nutrients are controlling system response. These approaches and assumptions are scientifically invalid and inappropriate, as we have pointed out above. There is no valid scientific basis for relating the SCI to nutrients in the State's database. FDEP has commented extensively on their view of the limitations of the reference stream approach used by the USEPA (FDEP, 2010e) to designate a stream ecosystem as impaired, based on its nutrient regime. This is why FDEP introduced the concept of a verification procedure using the SCI. In particular, as stressed many times by FDEP staff in numerous meetings, the reference stream approach must be backed up by biological validation of impairment. The major failings of the reference stream approach used by USEPA are as follows. a) It results in declaring an excessive number of un-impacted streams to be impaired by nutrients when there is no valid relationship to demonstrate that nutrients are even a factor in the vast number of streams. b) The selected percentile is not based on the actual status of the aquatic environments but is an arbitrary decision or one based on statistical concerns about type 1 and type 2 errors. The selection of the 75th percentile has been used by USEPA, but has been criticized by both FDEP as well as many scientists giving comments during the USEPA public hearings. c) Again, the reference stream approach uses no valid response variable which relate to nutrient concentrations, which leads to the assumption that certain sites are impaired where no evidence of impairment exists. 

# Comment ID 2233.001.008

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 5. EPA's characterization of eutrophication response is overly simplistic, assumes an impact from nutrients where none may exist, and ignores other factors that may be causing or contributing to apparent biological impairment. As a result, EPA's approach to setting nutrient criteria for streams is fundamentally flawed. CF is concerned that EPA's approach ignores the complexity of response variables that are not solely attributable to levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorous in surface waters, resulting in the establishment of arbitrarily stringent TN and TP criteria, particularly in streams. Such variables contributing to biological impairment include habitat alteration by extreme hydrology (unnatural high and low flows) and excessive sediment deposition, extreme weather events (hurricanes and droughts) and overall landscape changes. EPA assumes in its approach that impaired biology is erroneously attributed to nutrient impacts, when there is no statistical basis for such a conclusion.This is further evidenced by EPA's inability to quantify a cause-effect relationship between nutrients and stressorresponse variables in streams, underscoring the importance of these other variables in trying to define a statistical relationship. CF is concerned that natural factors such as color, wetlands and extensive macrophyte coverage, canopy and other characteristics contribute to the overall variability in water quality conditions, which the Agency has ignored. EPA also acknowledges atmospheric deposition as a causative factor to nutrient pollution, yet is completely ignores this contributor in its regulatory approach to water quality control. Note, for example, that atmospheric deposition

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3373Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams significantly accounts for 29 percent of the nitrogen load to Tampa Bay, which is a nitrogen limited waterbody. 

# Comment ID 2233.001.014

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries -EPA should withdraw its proposed criteria for streams altogether until or unless dose-response criteria can be developed. In the interim, existing waters that are unimpaired or that need protection could be set ("back-stopped") at existing nutrient levels in order to ensure that future impairment does not occur. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0627.001.003, 0649.001.001, 0653.001.003, 0654.001.002, 0665.001.003, 0698.001.004, 0721.001.003, 0734.001.002, 0739.001.002, 0739.001.003, 0740.001.003, 0771.001.002, 0771.001.003, 0784.001.003, 0906-1.001.001, 0914.001.001, 0915-1.001.009, 0922-1.001.032, 0974.001.004, 1009.001.007, 1009.001.008, 1012.001.010, 1304-1.001.016, 1128.001.008, 1137.001.003, 1217-2.001.048, 1217-2.001.050, 1217-2.001.053, 1224.001.006, 1235.001.004, 1261-1.001.010, 1261-1.001.011, 1292-1.001.006, 1292-1.001.010, 1292-1.001.016, 1292-1.001.022, 1292-1.001.085, 1292-1.001.096, 1301­ 1.001.005, 1304-1.001.016, 1304-1.001.028, 1304-1.001.037, 1331-1.001.005, 1331-1.001.009, , 1335.001.004, 1335.001.006, 1346-1.001.009, 1348-1.001.009, 1350-1.001.016, 1350-1.001.017, 1350-1.001.018, 1350-1.001.023, 1352-1.001.059, 1352­ 1.001.064, 1352-1.001.067, 1352-1.001.122, 1352-1.001.178, 1352-1.001.180, 1352-1.001.182, 1353-1.001.002, 1353-1.001.019, 1355-2.001.035, 1355-2.001.040, 1355-2.001.043, 1355-2.001.081, 1355-2.001.083, 1361-1.001.006, 1362-1.001.004, 1368­ 1.001.005, 1368-1.001.016, 1370-1.001.018, 1372-1.001.008, 1431-1.001.020, 1431-1.001.026, 1445-1.001.007, 1445-1.001.024, 1464-2.001.004, 1464-2.001.028, 1473-1.001.006, 1473-1.001.015, 1473-1.001.020, 1474-1.001.010, 1474-1.001.028, 1474­ 1.001.119, 1474-1.001.120, 1474-1.001.126, 1474-1.001.127, 1474-1.001.131, 1476-1.001.006, 1476-2.001.007, 1476-2.001.068, 1477-1.001.011, 1480-2.001.002, 1482-1.001.052, 1483-1.001.006, 1530.001.007, 1556-1.001.004, 1615-1.001.012, 1667­ 1.001.006, 1671-3.001.024, 1671-3.001.070, 1671-3.001.111, 1761-3.001.002, 1761-3.001.020, 1761-3.001.021, 1761-3.001.120, 1764-1.001.009, 1769-1.001.016, 1769-1.001.073, 1770-1.001.036, 1770-1.001.038, 1771-1.001.045, 1771-1.001.047, 1772­ 1.001.039, 1772-1.001.041, 1773-1.001.040, 1773-1.001.042, 1774.001.017, 1774.001.019, 1774-1.001.011, 1761-3.001.023, 1761­ 3.001.036, 1777-2.001.002, 1777-2.001.017, 1777-2.001.088, 1777-2.001.154, 1777-2.001.160, 1777-2.001.162, 1782-1.001.008, 1782-1.001.013, 1782-1.001.014, 1782-1.001.018, 1786-1.001.020, 1786-1.001.024, 1794-1.001.043, 1797-1.001.031, 1797­ 1.001.032, 1805-3.001.002, 1805-3.001.021, 1805-3.001.025, 1805-3.001.030, 1805-3.001.034, 1805-3.001.036, 1805-3.001.103, 1805-3.001.105, 1811-1.001.004, 1812-1.001.004, 1814-1.001.006, 1834-4.001.008, 1835-1.001.003, 1837-1.001.013, 1834­ 4.001.006, 1885.001.013, 1894.001.004, 2233.001.014, 2233-1.001.011, 2233-1.001.018, 2233-1.001.019, 2233-1.001.021, 2233­ 1.001.034, 2233-1.001.054, 2233-1.001.070, 2233-1.001.078, 0588.001.003, 1671-3.001.025, 1671-3.001.046, 1671-3.001.047, 1671-3.001.049, 1671-3.001.056, 1671-3.001.057, 1671-3.001.072, 1761-3.001.029, 1761-3.001.030, 1761-3.001.034, 1764­ 1.001.010, 1774.001.007, 1774.001.012, 1777-2.001.149, 1777-2.001.155, 1777-2.001.158, 1794-1.001.034, 1834-4.001.014, 1834­ 4.001.039, 2018-6.001.013 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3374Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams prepared. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the Stream Condition Index (SCI) reference site selection method was arbitrary and simplistic. EPA has considered this and other comments. EPA notes that the reference set of streams used to derive the final criteria in the rule are different than the set of streams used to derive the proposed criteria, except in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). Other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference set of streams, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream set because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. As to the SCI reference site selection method, simplicity in and of itself is not generally an argument against a reference site selection method. The development of the SCI, used as the principal screening tool for the “biologically healthy” reference population, was not a simple process. The SCI incorporates a multitude of information in it, including rules for selecting least disturbed reference sites that were used to develop, score, and identify nutrient thresholds. Moreover, EPA disagrees that the method of selecting reference sites based on an SCI screen was arbitrary. EPA detailed in the TSD the lengthy, involved, scientifically defensible, and transparent process used to generate the multimetric index; a process that is based on well established EPA guidance and scientific principles. The bioassessment and bioindicator literature underlying the SCI is both broad and comprehensive. Similarly, the selection of an SCI threshold of 40 was not arbitrary, but rather based on two rigorous statistical analyses detailed in the TSD. EPA considered a variety of potential SCI endpoints, as detailed in the TSD, and concluded that a value of 40 was most defensible. EPA wanted to develop a reference selection process that was both defensible and clear. The process EPA proposed depended on easily replicable bioassessment results that are clear to identify and easy to use in selecting sites. The SCI also clearly responds to stressors, including nutrient stressors, as detailed in the TSD and citations therein. Other comments opposed the use of the SCI alone for site selection, arguing that natural conditions can influence the SCI tool performance including physical-chemical parameters such as velocity, conductivity, pH, temp, and DO which can act as natural stressors. Natural variability does influence SCI scores, as reflected in the variability around minimally impacted reference sites SCI scores. EPA considered the influence of this natural variability explicitly in the selection of the SCI threshold and this consideration is described in great detail in the TSD appendices B-13 and B-14. There is also a great deal of information about human disturbance incorporated into the SCI score. For example, the development of the SCI included responsiveness to human disturbance gradients, including the Land Disturbance Index (LDI), in the selection, scoring, and threshold selection processes. So, the SCI scores inherently include considerations of human disturbance, and the selection of the threshold incorporates considerations of least-disturbed conditions. Lastly, the SCI was not used alone for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites. Other comments disagreed with the use of low dissolved oxygen as a basis to reject candidate reference sites because low oxygen may be a natural occurrence. EPA considered this and other comments. EPA retained the removal of sites listed by FDEP as impaired for dissolved oxygen for both the modified benchmark and SCI reference populations as detailed in the final rule and TSD. EPA rejected sites because of low dissolved oxygen where those sites had been included by FDEP on Florida’s list of impaired waters, pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA. FDEP is not required to include waterbodies on the section 303(d) list where it demonstrates that concentrations of dissolved oxygen were measured below the numeric criteria due solely to natural conditions. Without such a demonstration, EPA must rely on FDEP’s identification of impairment when considering whether to select candidate reference sites. Concerns related to FDEP’s section 303(d) list should be addressed through the 303(d) listing process, which is independent of the nutrient criteria development process. Similarly, any comments about the appropriateness of Florida’s dissolved oxygen criteria should be addressed in FDEP’s criterion development process and not the nutrient criteria

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3375Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams process. Some comments objected to the rejection of WBIDs listed as impaired for mercury or coliforms. EPA did not exclude WBIDs that were listed as impaired for any constituent other than dissolved oxygen and nutrients. This is detailed in the draft and final rule and TSD. Lastly, with regards to reference site selection, some comments sought clarification on the SCI reference approach. EPA provided a lengthy and clear description of the straightforward process used for selecting the SCI Population reference sites, which included a detailed description of the development of the SCI itself, in section 2 of the proposed rule TSD. 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. A number of comments disagreed with the sufficiency of data used by EPA. EPA considered these and other comments. The first assertion was that EPA used limited data. EPA considered all available data of defensible quality. For both the proposed and final rule for streams, this included screening and evaluating water chemistry data from more than 11,000 samples from over 6,000 sites statewide, and evaluating biological data of more than 2,000 samples from over 1,100 streams. A review of these data is included in the TSD and data files were also made available to the public. A second assertion was that data were collected during a fewclimatically abnormal years. It is unclear what is meant by climatically abnormal as Florida is typified by highly variable interannual climatic conditions (see figure below with annual precipitation data). Biological data were collected from 2004 to 2008, a period which, according to precipitation data from the Florida Climate Center, included years with annual average precipitationabove the 75th percentile of long-term average annual precipitation, years with annual averages below the 25th percentile of longterm average annual precipitation, and years with annual averages equal to the long-term average annual precipitation. Chemistry data were collected during an even longer period encompassing a similarly balanced number of variable climatic conditions. EPA concludes from this that the data used to derive numeric nutrient criteria incorporate the full range of hydrologic conditions representative of the variability typically observed in Florida including high, low and average conditions and that the range of conditions represented by the data actually reinforces the defensibility of the resultant criteria. There were comments that weighting or averaging was needed when using data from multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. In response to this

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3376Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams and similar comments, EPA considered the autocorrelation issues involved in using site averages for sites located closely in space and explored the use of WBID averages. For the final rule, EPA has decided to use WBID averages instead of site averages, which reduces the effect of spatial autocorrelation. The reanalysis and justification are detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. The supplemental notice included analyses of WBID based spatial units. Lastly, EPA received comment that the data used were of varied detection limits and methodologies and included unqualified data. All the data used were verified by FDEPs approved Data Useability requirements as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA received several comments that disagreed with the criteria determination process using the reference condition approach. EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s Benchmark Reference Approach, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream approach because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. The first comment within this general topic was that use of the upper bound of the distribution for “healthy” streams compromises the criteria. EPA considered several options for percentiles and incorporated the concern reflected in this comment into its consideration of which percentiles to use in the final rule. For the final rule, other than the West Central Region, EPA is using the 90th percentile of the modified Benchmark Approach WBID averages within each region because of EPA’s confidence in the screening of that reference population. In the West Central, EPA is using the 75th percentile of SCI approach WBID averages because of reduced confidence in the quality of sites within that population and the reduced sample size. The details of this decision and analysis are included in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA concluded that a reference population typified by either healthy biological conditions or least-disturbed conditions provides EPA with the confidence that these are least-disturbed sites and that the use of upper bound percentiles from this population to establish the criteria was acceptable. A second related comment was that no analysis had been provided to support the 75th percentile as an accurate statistic for defining the distribution of reference sites and that its selection was a policy and not technical decision. As stated above, in response to this and similar comments, EPA revisited the percentile selection process and decided on the percentiles indicated above. EPA defends the selection of an upper percentile of biologically healthy and least disturbed populations of values as technically defensible for protecting streams. Again, EPA provided a detailed argument of why that is so, related to the fact that the nutrient dynamics of such sites are, implicitly, consistent with that found in sites supporting designated uses. EPA also affirms that the 75th percentile is indeed a statistical characteristic of a population distribution. EPA agrees that the final decision to use a specific percentile does include the exercise of judgment, but that judgment is not arbitrary but rather is based on a consideration of risk to uses based on the degree to which the basis population represents conditions expected to support uses and a consideration of errors in making use attainment decisions based on the resultant values. This judgment is informed by technical information as well. Lastly, some comments asked why a 90th percentile was not used, as suggested by FDEP. Again, EPA has finalized streams criteria for most regions using the 90th percentile when there are sufficient data available to provide EPA with enough confidence that the reference site population is least-disturbed, and closely reflective of minimally impacted conditions. In the West Central Region, where fewer reference sites are available, EPA has continued to set the criteria at the 75th percentile because there is less confidence that these sites reflect least-disturbed conditions. In the absence of a clear, un-confounded stressor-response relationship, EPA elected to use a reference condition approach to develop protective numeric criteria. For the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3377Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as noted above for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified benchmark population of reference sites.

Comment IDs: 0588.001.003, 1137.001.003, 1217-2.001.048, 1301-1.001.005, 1301-1.001.008, 1331-1.001.005, 1346-1.001.011, 1346-1.001.012, 1352-1.001.008, 1352-1.001.011, 1352-1.001.070, 1352-1.001.119, 1352-1.001.184, 1355-2.001.046, 1350­ 1.001.017, 1350-1.001.018, 1350-1.001.020, 1352-1.001.057, 1352-1.001.109, 1355-2.001.004, 1368-1.001.012, 1370-1.001.018, 1474-1.001.119, 1671-1.001.003, 1761-3.001.118, 1777-2.001.156, 1782-1.001.009, 1782-1.001.015, 1786-1.001.007, 1805­ 3.001.031, 1805-3.001.103, 1888-1.001.003, 1923.001.006, 1474-1.001.124, 1476-1.001.006, 1647-1.001.021, 1647-1.001.022, 1797-1.001.034, 1801-1.001.030, 1801-1.001.031, 2233.001.008, 1352-1.001.058, 1355-2.001.034, 1355-2.001.081 Response: EPA received comments disagreeing with how the Agency decided to classify streams into Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWRs). EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, EPA has decided to split the Panhandle Region into West and East regions and to restrict the size of the West Central (previously Bone Valley) Region. There were several comments related to intraregional classification. The first comment was that the approach for regionalization was too broad, that criteria will not protect the diversity and unique characteristics of waters that vary within regions, and that site-specific studies and criteria would account for more variability. As outlined in the nutrient criteria guidance, EPA recognizes that classification aims to reduce as much natural variability within classes as possible. Such classification efforts must weigh the trade-off between specificity, which would be optimized if each site were considered separately, and resource requirements and data availability, which clearly limit how fine a classification is possible. EPA considered a variety of regionalization schemes and has decided on the regionalization described above and detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA believes the regionalization is protective of Florida streams since EPA considered the full range of variability in its selection of sites and captures that variability in its selection of the SCI thresholds based on inter-site variability among reference sites and in its selection of the upper bound percentiles of the reference population.

A second comment related to stream classification was that 4th order streams are different from 1st order streams in structure and function and in responses to nutrient loads. EPA agrees that size can affect stream processes and EPA considered stream size, but did not find a compelling basis for differentiating criteria based on stream size for the final rule since stronger differences were attributable to interregional classes as detailed in the proposed rule and final rule TSDs. EPA would not rule out regional refinement in the future based on stream size should compelling evidence support such a change. The federal site-specific alternative criteria procedure established in the rule may be used for such changes when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. A third comment is that stream classifications should have been based on concentrations and not N:P ratios. EPA agrees that N:P ratios along should not be the sole basis for classification which is why EPA considered concentrations as well as N:P ratios in its

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3378Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

classification and detailed this in the draft rule and final rule TSDs. There were also several comments related to interregional classification elements. Some comments argued that soil and geologic differences were related to P but not N and, therefore, were not appropriate bases for NWR for nitrogen. EPA considered many factors related to classification and considered several classification options. Clearly, there are differences among the regions with respect to geologically reactive P deposits, especially highlighted in differences between the North Central and West Central regions and other regions. EPA revisited the regionalization associated with the geologically reactive Hawthorn Group in response to these and other comments and selected the regionalization described above for both TP and TN, which is described in detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent. EPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion at this time. However, EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a color-TN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA’s analysis of the stream TN data indicated that the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than non-Panhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. Other comments suggested that geology was an appropriate basis for regionalization, but that biological comparisons should also be used to identify regional differences. EPA’s regionalization began with a framework developed by FDEP that was based on biology. The FDEP effort considered bioregions from their bioassessment programs as one element in their classification framework. Not surprisingly, the final EPA NWR classification is similar to the bio-regionalization developed by FDEP for their SCI tool, with some obvious differences dictated by geological factors. Lastly, EPA received comments that nutrient availability is controlled by soil chemistry, geology, and hydrogeology and that classes should be based on these factors for areas with adequate supporting data. EPA agrees and considered all of these factors, data availability, and appropriate response characteristics in establishing the NWR classes. Soil chemistry reflects underlying geology, which was an element used by EPA in developing the NWRs. Similarly, EPA considered ecoregions which themselves rely heavily on geology, soil type, and hydrology. Importantly, however, EPA also considered trends in observed nutrient distributions to verify and guide classification. It is the behavior of nutrients that manifests the effects of the major classification drivers, so EPA relied on this to help guide final class selection.

Comment IDs: 0721.001.003, 0723.001.006, 0734.001.005, 0784.001.003, 0796.001.003, 0915-1.001.008, 1012.001.008, 1217­ 2.001.006, 1217-2.001.050, 1292-1.001.022, 1296-1.001.008, 1350-1.001.003, 0906-1.001.001, 0914.001.001, 1292-1.001.044, 1292-1.001.053, 1346-1.001.009, 1352-1.001.120, 1370-1.001.020, 1474-1.001.122, 1722-1.001.020, 1725-1.001.005, 1770­

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3379Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams
1.001.036, 1774.001.008, 1777-2.001.152, 1782-1.001.011, 1782-1.001.056, 1785-1.001.027, 1786-1.001.018, 1786-1.001.019, 1786-1.001.023, 1788-1.001.002, 1834-1.001.005, 1834-4.001.001, 2233-1.001.080, 1480-2.001.010, 1530.001.031, 1834­ 1.001.007 Response: EPA also received comments related to implementation. The first theme within these comments was related to assessment errors and conflicts between biological conditions and impairment decisions which could result from EPA’s criteria. EPA has considered all these and other comments related to this first theme. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the Benchmark Approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula regions. This modified Benchmark Approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed landcover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. Because EPA has relied on this more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified in that region. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. In the same vein, EPA received comments arguing that, under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, some reference or pristine waterbodies would be deemed to be impaired. Some of this perception seems to have been the result of analyses by FDEP and others of the number of FDEP reference waterbodies that would not meet the proposed criteria. First, there are likely no pristine waterbodies, defined as that reflecting the original pre-human state, left in Florida. The impacts of centuries of human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere have made the existence of pristine conditions essentially extinct in Florida. Even Florida’s original benchmark site population, presented as pristine, contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor, however, EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds, based

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3380Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered that several of FDEP’s benchmark reference sites were included on the State’s section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various reasons, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairments. The salient point is that any conclusion of the number of “reference” waterbodies that would be deemed impaired depends on a careful and accurate depiction of reference and the conclusions using the population originally presented by FDEP presented issues that were problematic. EPA is using a modified Benchmark Approach for its final criteria that addresses many of these problematic screening issues. That modified approach is described above and in more detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. Also related to this first theme, EPA disagrees with comments that assert impairment of reference sites based on error rate analyses described in the comments. EPA views the type of analysis suggested in the comment as inappropriate and flawed because these analyses proposed calculating error rates using traditional statistical assumptions about attainment and non-attainment. EPA observed that there are no true independent “attaining” or “non-attaining” populations upon which to test the criteria because criteria do not yet exist, therefore these tests are invalid. The concept of false positive and false negative rates is predicated on the assumption that an independent assessment of the attainment and non-attainment is available. For example, to estimate the false positive rate of a diagnostic test, physicians observe whether patients actually contract a disease. In the case of nutrient criteria, the reference distribution is the only means of defining attainment and non-attainment. Hence, any discussion of false positive or false negative rates is not relevant. Further under this first implementation theme, some commenters argued that some streams would meet the criteria yet still display unhealthy biological conditions and that, therefore, implementation of the criteria should require biological validation that waters attaining the criteria are in fact healthy. EPA agrees it is possible that some streams would meet nutrient criteria yet still display unhealthy conditions but disagrees with the reasons why and the implication. There are many stressors that threaten aquatic life. Nutrient criteria are meant to protect against the effect of elevated nutrients on aquatic life. The criteria cannot control for other stressors which may also result in unhealthy conditions. Moreover, it may be that some streams meet the criteria and still contain unhealthy conditions due to nutrients. The approach for criteria derivation used here could potentially result in nutrient impacts below the proposed criteria. EPA has attempted to minimize that risk with the approach used in the final rule based on stringent criteria, biological screens, and higher percentiles but it is not a guarantee that our generally applicable criteria are most appropriate for every individual stream. In a case where the proposed criteria are proven not to protect aquatic life from nutrient effects, then site-specific criteria can be set to provide more protective criteria. 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. Requiring independent validation of biological impairment would, ostensibly, invalidate the need for protective nutrient criterion to protect aquatic life. The last argument under the first implementation theme was that EPA’s proposed approach for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria assumed elevated nutrient levels are responsible for impairment when they may not be and/or that it is impossible to determine if designated uses will be protected. EPA disagrees that it is impossible to determine that elevated concentrations will impair uses or if uses will be protected by setting the final criteria. 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,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3381Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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 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 decided to use the reference approach described based on the specific SCI approach in the West Central Region and the modified Benchmark Approach in all other regions, following EPA peer reviewed guidance for deriving criteria. Such an approach concludes that concentrations observed in least disturbed reference populations known to be unimpaired by nutrient impacts would continue to protect designated uses from nutrient impacts. The basis for this is articulated in the EPA nutrient criteria guidance documents. As noted above, the final rule provides flexibility for the any entity to submit SSAC for waterbodies where additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The second comment theme under implementation relates to the cost of regulation. Commenters argue that local and state governments will spend a lot of money to come up with site-specific criteria within the very broad regions established to set the proposed criteria and that this will squander resources that could be used to correct true impairments. EPA disagrees and believes the resultant criteria will be sufficiently protective across the broad NWRs and the criteria will identify true impairments, obviating the need for site-specific criteria except where necessary. Indeed, EPA expended great effort with the classification element to minimize the need for site-specific criteria. Where local and state government determines a SSAC is necessary to most appropriately address specific waterbodies, the development of those SSAC should cost roughly the same as what it would cost to develop the appropriate limits under the narrative nutrient criteria. The extent of impacts due to nutrient enrichment in Florida and across the nation is substantial. EPA agrees that the efforts to solve this pressing problem will involve an investment of resources. But EPA hopes all parties agree such investments are necessary to protect our vital resources from the pervasive effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution that is clearly evident in Florida and across the country.

Comment IDs: 1331-1.001.009, 1346-1.001.009, 1353-1.001.016, 1359-1.001.006, 1362-1.001.004, 1370-1.001.019, 1443­ 1.001.010 Response: EPA received several comments related to the concern that nutrient 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3382Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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 IDs: 1197.001.004, 1217-2.001.050, 1615-1.001.013, 1774-1.001.012, 1920-1.001.014, 1920-1.001.024, 1920-1.001.025 Response: EPA received a variety of positive comments that are acknowledged here. Most of these commenters argued that the proposed criteria were scientifically sound because they were based on biologically healthy streams and that this approach was better than least-disturbed based approaches. EPA agrees that the biologically healthy reference approach is scientifically defensible for criteria derivation and used that approach to derive criteria for the West Central NWR. EPA also considers its modification to FDEP’s least-disturbed based approach to be a valid approach for criteria derivation. Others commented that EPA’s nutrient criteria guidance for the approach used does not require proof of a specific stressor-response to establish criteria. EPA agrees. 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 also agrees with those who commented that criteria are required to restore and protect waters to unimpaired conditions.

References: 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. Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542. Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429. Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643-657. Cross, W.F., J.B. Wallace, A.D. Rosemond, and S.L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3383Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565. Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427. Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158. Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477. 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 production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142. Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368. Gaiser, E.E., J.C. Trexler, J.H. Richards, D.L.Childers, D. Lee, A.L. Edwards, L.J. Scinto, K. Jayachandran, G.B. Noe, and R.D. Jones, 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723. Lohman, K., J.R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23. Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835. Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117. Notestein, S.K., T.K. Frazer, M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G.S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386. Rosemond, A.D., P.J. Mulholland, and J.W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3384Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J.L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289. Slavik, K., B.J. Peterson, L.A. Deegan, W. B. Bowden, A.E. Hershey, J.E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939-954. Stelzer, R.S. and G.A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367. 

# III.C.2.Q.2 - METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING EPA’S PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR STREAMS QUESTION 2 Comment ID 0508-1.001.010

Author Name: Wilson M. Organization: Florida Chamber of Commerce

• Your agency's rules appear to require approximately 80% of Florida's most pristine rivers and streams to undergo remediation even though it is biologically unnecessary and possibly harmful to the existing ecosystem; 

# Comment ID 0588.001.009

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County

- Given that all sites have been demonstrated to meet aquatic life use support, EPA should either set the criteria at a higher percentile (i.e., 90th), rather than 75th, or require biological validation before declaring impairment 

# Comment ID 0588.001.010

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County

- 35% of Florida's most pristine surface waters will fail EPA's proposed in-stream criteria

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3385Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0589.001.012

Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. 12. The proposed methodology eliminates all nutrient "impaired waters". The remaining data are therefore deduced by EPA to be indicative of water bodies not "impaired". Then NNC are established based on the 75th percentile of the remaining data. This is not justifiable based on logic or statistics, see discussion attached. This methodology is believed to be arbitrary and capricious. 

# Comment ID 0589.001.029

Author Name: Foy J. Organization: StormwaterJ Engineering Inc. Recent data from the JW Corbett Wildlife Area indicate the following: Original comment letter contains additional data or information for unspecified waterbody types from the JW Corbett Wildlife Area. See original comment letter. This area is an example of water quality that should represent pristine conditions. The 75% of these two data sets are 0 .051 mg/I for station 16, and 0.052 mg/I for station HS1. These 75 percentiles exceed the proposed criteria of 0.42 mg/I for TP. It is difficult to accept a proposed standard that is lower in value than that being discharged from a pristine area. 

# Comment ID 0619.001.002

Author Name: Lee J. Organization: I've seen, the numbers that I've seen in streams exceed in the vast majority of cases the numbers that have been proposed, especially with the Panhandle area. That concerns me over the fact also that these standards are based on the 75th percentile of river and streams, rather than on science that determines the levels at which biological degradation occurs. And I'm not sure how much we'll be able to increase the diversity with the dollars spent. Also, using utility in which also includes organic nitrogen and in many cases may not be found in a natural environment. The drinking water standard for nitrate nitrogens, just for a reference point is, ten parts per million, but this standard for total nitrogen is 12 times more stringent than the drinking standard. Also, I pulled up data from the 2008, from the National Atmospheric Probe from the Quincy station just a few miles from her. In that of the 37 weekly samples of rainfall that were sampled in 2008, over 27 percent exceeded these nitrogen standards. When I look at any of the samples that exceed fifty percent of the proposed standards for the Panhandle, it included all samples except six.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3386Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

I do want to say that both the industry I'm in, we do support the streams being in their designated use. We have been, as far as agriculture goes, I think we're somewhat of a forerunner in that area. But I just really want to say if numeric criteria is to be met, we need to be very, very careful with what that letter says. 

# Comment ID 0631.001.004

Author Name: DeGrove B. Organization: I understand the effort that EPA has made to develop scientifically numeric nutrient criteria, but effort alone does not make a functional rule. Cause and effect relationship to adopt and discover a reference stream approach is inadequate for this. To make it worse, the protective values are based on using the 75th percentile of this stream that were determined to be biologically healthy. So 25 percent of the biologically healthy streams are not good enough. I can't understand that logic. So what would I recommend EPA do the improve the Rule? I would strongly urge estuary programs in Florida and other scientist groups to insure this local work is the basis for any nutrient criteria that are ultimately -- (inaudible) -- downstream protective values needed to be based on good, local science whenever it is available. Downstream protective values should be load based. Estuary response to nutrient loads not nutrient concentrations. Downstream protective values should apply if the boundary between the stream and the estuary. The estuary doesn't care what an upstream conservation is. It only cares what's being received. In stream protective values should be causal. If EPA insists on noncausal criteria, criteria should not be based on the 75th percentile. All or at least virtually all of the data should be used, and this is still overprotective since criteria are supposed to support data uses, not just define the qualities of the best waters. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0644.001.011

Author Name: Janazzo J. Organization: Okaloosa County Commissioners You're saying that 35 percent of our most pristine waters don't pass the EPA criteria. That doesn't pass the common sense test. For our area, mercury and bacteria are the two most common things that are listed for our impaired waters. Guess what? We don't have any control over the mercury, coal-fired power plants that aren't in our county and coming out of the atmosphere. 

# Comment ID 0649.001.003

Author Name: Borkowski W. Organization: CF Industries More importantly, you've heard it from several speakers, when you apply an arbitrary, and I believe it is an arbitrary

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3387Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams number, a percentile, taking the 75th, 90th, 80th, whatever, you immediately condemn your reference waters, your pristine waters, the ones that you folks selected as the gold standard to impaired status. I keep hearing that this approach has been peer reviewed. I have spoken to virtually every nutrient expert I could put my hands on who would talk to an attorney to ask that question, and I have not had one tell me that there was any logic behind a methodology that condemns your gold standard waters to failure and restoration of their TMDL program. 

# Comment ID 0661.001.004

Author Name: Ferguson D. Organization: Florida Association of Counties We're particularly concerned that 80 percent of DEP's reference waters would not meet downstream protection values under this proposed rule. Some of these waters are in fully protected and publicly owned lands. And this seems to be a pretty clear indicator that something is wrong with the methodology that's being used to derive the numbers. 

# Comment ID 0662.001.006

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association You know, most of these criteria come to be unattainable, and if 80 percent of the DEP reference streams will not meet these criteria, I fear that it creates this sense of hopelessness with this process. And I think it would result in more litigation. I think it will result in less targeted protections, and I think it will result in a much poorer integration of the outstanding program that we have in Florida for water quality improvement with region four and with EPA. And I think that works against everybody's objectives. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0723.001.003

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida One of the concerns I have results from a recent experience with EPA in some of the proposed TMDLs that EPA has sought to adopt. On one particular stream EPA has stated that the stream cannot meet the water quality standard under natural conditions. And so I asked myself if it can't meet it under natural conditions, maybe there's something wrong with the standard that we're trying to impose. I am afraid that the standard that is sought to be imposed is arbitrary and perhaps it's not derived in the most scientifically-based manner. 

# Comment ID 0723.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3388Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida Picking the 75th percentile doesn't seem to be that there's a strong enough correlation with the stream health. Many streams are healthy that the EPA says are not. The standard is statistically derived and not necessarily biologically derived. 

# Comment ID 0723.001.007

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida The criteria will cause several streams on the ranch, including Wolf Creek, Crabgrass Creek and several others, to be deemed impaired, even though these creeks show no adverse impact from the nutrients and are biologically healthy. We may be required to recover health in streams. Our cattle-count population does not have the financial ability to chase a criteria that deems healthy streams to be impaired. 

# Comment ID 0732.001.010

Author Name: Fulford C. Organization: Congressman Adam Putnam According to the EPA, under the proposed rule 80 percent of pristine Florida rivers and streams will be classified as impaired. I fail to see how these contradictory conclusions between scientists will be helpful to the public in understanding these proposed rules. 

# Comment ID 0734.001.006

Author Name: Young K. Organization: Tampa Electric Company EPA's selection of the 75th percentile of streams with a stream condition index bigger than 40 is itself arbitrary and immediately declares 25 percent of the most biologically healthy waters as impaired and needing restoration. This creates an unnecessary demand on already scarce resources in the state. I'm talking about monetary resources. Tampa Electric believes that numeric nutrient criteria must address the existing condition of the water body and the best way to do this is to set site-specific criteria that do account for dose-response relationships.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3389Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0739.001.004

Author Name: Robbins K. Organization: Entrix Second, the instream protection values were derived using the arbitrary percentile of 75 of the nutrient values for reference streams that were deemed healthy using the SCI value of 40 and not impaired, according to the EPA 303 list. Using the example of the Bone Valley streams, 40 percent of the 22 referenced streams chosen by EPA would be impaired for either TN or TP instream protection values under the current rule, even though EPA considered all 22 of those streams to be healthy and not impaired. Therefore, the current IPV percentile is still much too low and could falsely identify healthy streams as impaired for nutrients. 

# Comment ID 0739.001.005

Author Name: Robbins K. Organization: Entrix In addition to setting higher IPV criteria, EPA should use a biological validation procedure in its rule, so that only streams with unhealthy biological communities and/or other impairments are considered impaired under the numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 0770.001.003

Author Name: Wheeler B. Organization: Tohopekaliga (Toho) Water Authority Based on the information that I have read over the past several weeks, there appears to be significant disconnect between the criteria being proposed by EPA and the work that has been done on the numeric nutrient criteria by FDEP. The fact that a significant percentage of the FDEP reference streams be classified as impaired under the EPA criteria indicates that there was a problem with proposed criteria. Reference streams should act as a basis for calibrating or testing the proposed criteria for some sense of validity. The fact that a majority of the reference streams will be classified as impaired under the proposed criteria indicates that there is a problem with the methodology that produce the criteria. It appears that the proposed criteria could in some areas establish limits significantly lower than necessary to maintain a healthy water body resulting in an unnecessary expenditure of significant resources. This appears to contradict the principles of sustainability being emphasized by EPA. Expending significant resources, including energy resources, to achieve an unnecessary low environmental standard contradicts the concept of sustainability. 

# Comment ID 0771.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3390Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Hammond D. Organization: Entrix Third, there is no scientific justification for choosing nutrient concentrations at the 75th percentile of unimpaired and biologically healthy streams. This concern was also mentioned by a reviewer during the external peer review of EPA's proposed methodologies. In the Bone Valley, 40 percent of the 22 stations -- of the 22 reference streams that were deemed unimpaired and biologically healthy would be considered in exceedance of the proposed water quality standard for either total nitrogen or total phosphorus. Additionally, in a Harvey Harper report prepared for DEP in 2009, runoff from some natural vegetation communities with no human impact also exceeded the proposed IPV criteria. This exemplifies the over-protective nature of the IPV criteria that would incorrectly identify healthy reference streams as impaired. 

# Comment ID 0795.001.003

Author Name: McCarthy L. Organization: Lykes Brothers On the 75 versus the 90th percentile that you've chosen, you've chosen to set the numeric nutrient criteria for the most part using 75th percentile values and not the 90th as was proposed by FDEP. This appears to be a policy selection and not a technical selection. Florida has the most water quality data of any other state in the country. DEP spent more than 20 years evaluating the effects of nutrients in various water bodies all around the state. You should have a much higher level of comfort in using the higher confidence limit values. The volume of data and biological knowledge for the reference water body available doesn't merit using the 75th percentile confidence limit I don't think. 

# Comment ID 0814.001.006

Author Name: Foy J. Organization: City of Atlantis, the Town of Haverhill Point number 12, 75 percentile, and I'm sure you've heard this before, is that that's an interesting number. Is it scientifically justifiable? Why not 65 percent, 90 percent. It doesn't really have a good scientific base. You need something that relates cause/effect back to percentage. 

# Comment ID 0915-1.001.004

Author Name: Stephens G.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3391Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. 4. The 90th percentile of the nutrient concentration measured in the selected healthy streams would be more appropriate. The 75th percentile is too restrictive and will result in considerable cost with no measurable benefit. 

# Comment ID 0915-1.001.006

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. 9. In order to determine the nutrient concentration which would protect the downstream receiving waters, appropriate nutrient criteria would have to be established for the downstream water body. EPA has not done that. The assumption made by EPA that using 50% of the 75th percentile of the measured nutrients in healthy streams is required to protect the stream is grossly over conservative and has no scientific basis whatsoever. 

# Comment ID 0915-1.001.007

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. 10. EPA's proposed limits would result in streams showing no signs of impairment to be placed on the list of impaired streams. 

# Comment ID 0964.001.003

Author Name: Price J. Organization: Rayonier However, other portions of the rule are problematic. A recent DEP analysis demonstrates the criteria for rivers and streams will result in a finding of impairment for the majority of Florida waters, including many that are considered pristine. This raises significant questions regarding the validity of EPA's science. 

# Comment ID 0974.001.005

Author Name: Kollias L. Organization: Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 5. Page 4195 describes the inter-quartile range technique used by EPA to set nutrient standards . "The 75th percentile

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3392Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams represents a reasonable upper bound of where there is the greatest confidence that biologically healthy sites will be represented. Beyond the inter-quartile range (i.e., below the 25th percentile and above the 75th percentile), there is a greater chance that measurements may represent anomalies that would not correspond to long-term healthy conditions in the majority of streams." It is inappropriate to set thresholds that are purely based on mathematics but unsupported by any scientific biological evidence. 

# Comment ID 1012.001.009

Author Name: Grigsby W. Organization: Florida Cattleman's Association Under Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria, 80% of the reference or pristine water bodies, as determined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, exceed the Environmental Protection Agency's Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida Waters and would be deemed impaired according to the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed criteria. These reference sites have been determined to be pristine through rigorous scientific evaluation, conducted by Florida Department of Environmental Protection, through a stressor-response analysis based on the biology of the individual water body. 

# Comment ID 1105.001.003

Author Name: Robbins K. Organization: Entrix In addition to my comments about the lake criteria, I also have concerns about the process used to set the stream I.P.V. criteria, including the lack of a dose response relationship, the use of the so-called long-term data set that only has one or two years of data for 90 percent of the reference sites and the use of the 75th percentile as an arbitrary threshold with no proximate in peer-reviewed literature. Based on these concerns and those expressed by others, we believe that the proposed E.P.A. criteria could be significantly improved through further analysis, and we support D.E.P.'s efforts to ­

- to improve their own analysis and understanding to set scientifically-defensible numeric nutrient criteria. Thank you for your time. And I have the two hand-outs from the nutrient TAC meeting. 

# Comment ID 1128.001.009

Author Name: Blancher II E. Organization: Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration LLC on behalf of CF Industries We echo the Science Advisory Board's comments that univariant relationships cannot describe multivariant phenomenon. Thus, to base nutrient criteria on a biological condition measure which is not -- which is known not to vary with nutrients is totally arbitrary.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3393Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams This also renders the U.S. E.P.A.'s selection of 75 percent of reference streams another arbitrary decision in the reference waters approach is unsound and unscientific. We agree with many of the points F.D.E.P. has made on the various aspects of the U.S. E.P.A. proposal, including averaging and time periods related to determining violations. We particularly object to developing criteria from stream characterizations when the computation of geometric means are made from single data points. 

# Comment ID 1135.001.005

Author Name: Naja M. Organization: Everglades Foundation We do strongly support the conservative aspect of the nutrient criteria developed by the EPA. While the FDEP considered using the 19th percentile benchmark for setting numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, the EPA nutrient criteria set an upper percentile, the 75th, to protect the biological health of streams. In this regard we do support the EPA's approach. A protective threshold somewhat more conservative than the bare minimum is required for restoring impaired waters to a nonimpaired condition. Furthermore, the Everglades Foundation supports the protective approach for maintaining the water quality standards of downstream inland waters. 

# Comment ID 1197.001.005

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida In fact, in reviewing the proposed criteria and the streams and lakes throughout Florida, only about 30 percent of all the state's streams and rivers -- or streams, lakes -- and lakes would actually violate these criteria currently, as opposed to some earlier figures that were mentioned. 

# Comment ID 1217-2.001.049

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC EPA then set the IPV at the 75th percentile of TN and TP levels associated with these healthy streams. EPA theorizes that values set at this level would "most likely" be protective since they would not encompass the highest 25% of measured nutrient values and "therefore" would exclude those streams that conceivably could be atypically tolerant of nutrients. But EPA presents no evidence either that the TP or TN levels above this 75th percentile actually cause biological harm to any specific stream or waterbody, or that TP or TN levels below this level would be protective of the biological conditions in any specific stream or waterbody. Since EPA is extrapolating from water bodies it identifies as healthy, the nutrient levels for all of its reference streams were, in fact, associated with healthy waterbodies. The

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3394Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Agency's "reasoning" that lower levels are needed or appropriate is no more robust than the fallacy that if "x" is okay, less than "x" is better. EPA's approach is not logical in light of the pertinent data. Rather than recognize that the nutrient levels in healthy streams are acceptable, EPA arbitrarily assumes that the top quartile of nutrient levels in healthy streams are not environmentally protective and then sets its nutrient criteria for all streams as the basis of this theorized "unprotective" quartile. This is comparable to concluding that among a population of healthy adults, the 25% highest caloric intake levels must be unhealthy regardless of the actual weight, metabolism or other characteristics of those individuals, based on nothing more than the fact that excess caloric intake can lead to obesity in some persons. 

# Comment ID 1217-2.001.051

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Solution: Adopt a 95th Percentile Approach As a starting point, Mosaic submits that EPA should jettison its overly protective and unscientific use of the 75th percentile of reference stream concentrations. There is no empirical evidence that the nutrient levels in the top 25th percentile are biologically harmful. Because EPA acknowledges that all of its reference streams are healthy waterbodies, and because EPA's IPVs set levels below background in many cases, all of the nutrient concentrations in these select waterbodies should be deemed safe (at least unless and until proven otherwise). Respectfully, Mosaic observes that a contrary outcome could leave the Rule vulnerable to challenge on grounds of it being arbitrary and capricious. If the Agency feels it needs some "margin of safety" to safeguard against "outliers" (i.e., anomalously high nutrient levels) in the reference stream data set, that would be satisfactorily accomplished by a 95th percentile approach -­ which is a more conventional policy choice. In statistics generally, the accepted convention for setting upper confidence limits or thresholds is to use a percentile in the range of 90 to 99 percent.[27] The 95th percentile is one of the most commonly chosen thresholds in both normal and lognormal distributions, and many statistical papers have been devoted to determining how to best estimate the 95th percent confidence interval of lognormal distributions.[28] Moreover, use of 95th percentiles for determining water, soil, or air quality thresholds is widespread in the environmental field. For example: the 95th and 99th percentiles were used to propose effluent limitations for ammonia and chromium discharge in Grand Rapids, Michigan, based on a Monte Carlo model of discharge effects on the receiving river;[29] an upper bound of 95 percent of background samples was used to determine compliance of mean soil lead concentrations at an impacted former plating waste disposal area;[30] and the 95th percentile limit was used to define both river water quality reference-based criteria and sewage treatment discharge effluent limits based on more than 330 water quality data sets.[31] In several EPA guidance documents, the Agency has recommended the 90th, 95th, or 99th percentiles for soil or water quality threshold determinations. In a guidance document on the interpretation of environmental contaminant data published by EPA, several methods of calculating upper confidence limits of log normally distributed environmental data were evaluated. For each method and example, the 95th percentile was always used as an example of an upper

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3395Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams confidence limit.[32] EPA's guidance document on acceptable statistical methods for determining Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") facility compliance states that the 95th percentile of background (reference) data is recommended to establish an upper tolerance limit that is not to be exceeded in groundwater.[33] In the lengthy peer review comments and subsequent EPA responses to the earlier 2004 draft of this guidance, none of the reviewers or EPA staff challenged use of the 95th percentile to set background tolerance limits. When contamination thresholds rather than background conditions are being evaluated, EPA also has recommended the use of percentiles between 90 and 99 to make decisions about human health risk.[34],[35],[36] EPA's own justifications for its selection of the 75th percentile are unpersuasive. EPA's justifications include: (1) the 90th or 95th percentiles may be influenced by extreme events or tolerant sites; (2) the 75th percentile is the upper end of the inter-quartile range which is commonly used in statistical software; (3) the 75th percentile provides more assurance because more reference sites are above that level in a lognormal distribution; (4) values past the 75th percentile are less representative of the majority of the data because the lognormal inter-quartile range is smaller than in normal distributions; and (5) for a lognormal distribution the slope within the inter-quartile range will be greatest, so values outside the range may represent anomalies. The last of these reasons is the only justification EPA provides in its Technical Support Document for the Rule.[37] None of these arguments is convincing. First, although upper percentiles may be more affected by unusual conditions than the 75th percentile, the use of 95th percentiles for lognormal data is widespread in environmental applications (see illustrative examples above), especially when comparing background data to potentially impacted site data. Second, the potential effect of extreme events on the EPA dataset has already been mitigated by the use of long-term, geometric means as the basis for their lognormal distribution. This data set already accounted for and smoothed over the possibility of high loading years. Third, while it is true that the 75th percentile can be calculated by certain conventional statistical software applications, those applications are typically employed to determine the central tendency or the range of variance in a distribution, not the upper confidence limit. In contrast, the 95th percentile is the default value typically used by scientists and in statistical software to report upper confidence limit and to determine whether two distributions are different (such as comparing "reference sites" and potentially impaired sites). Although other percentiles can be selected for these purposes, the alternative values are usually the 90th or the 99th percentiles, not at or approaching the 75th percentile. The fact that 75th percentiles are commonly used on "box-and-whisker" plots that are used to show the distribution and variability of a data set does not justify their use for selection of an upper threshold for critical regulatory purposes.[38] (For additional analysis and explanation of the proposed 95th percentile approach, please see Attachment 4.) Accordingly, Mosaic advocates that EPA adopt the 95th percentile values of the site-average data set for each Nutrient Watershed Region as the appropriate basis for setting nutrient IPV criteria. (Even at the 95th percentile, 14 percent of the EPA Bone Valley healthy reference site means would still exceed the criteria.) Mosaic proposes that the Table in Section 131.43(c)(2)(i) of the Rule be revised as follows: Original comment letter contains additional information for rivers and streams in a table of alternative nutrient criteria on page 35 of pdf. See original comment letter. [27] Quinn, G. P. and M. J. Keough. 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 537 pp.; Reimann, C. P. Filzmoser, and R. G. Garrett. 2005. Background and threshold: critical comparison of methods of determination. Science of the Total Environment 346: 1 -16; Miesch, A. T. 1981. Estimation

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3396Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams of the geochemical threshold and its statistical significance. Journal of Geochemical Exploration. 16: 49-76. [28] See, e.g., Zou, G. Y., J. Taleban, C. Y. Huo. 2009. Confidence interval estimate for lognormal data with application to health economics. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 53: 3755-3764; Zhou, X. H. and S. Gao. 1997. Confidence Intervals for the Log-Normal Mean. Statistics in Medicine, 16: 783-790; Olsson, Ulf. 2005. Confidence Intervals for the Mean of a Log-Normal Distribution. Journal of Statistics Education, 13(1); Singh, A. K., A. Singh, and M. Engelhardt. 1997. The Lognormal Distribution in Environmental Applications. US EPA Technology Support Center Issue. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. [29] Marr, J. K. and R. P. Canale. 1988. Load Allocation for Toxics Using Monte Carlo Techniques. Journal Water Pollution control Federation, 60(5): 659-666. [30] Bhaumik, D. K. and R. D. Gibbons. 2004. An Upper Prediction Limit for the Arithmetic Mean of a Lognormal Random Variable. Technometrics, 46(2): 239-248. [31] Crabtree, R. W., I. D. Cluckie, and C. F. Forster. 1987. Percentile Estimation for Water Quality Data. Water Resources, 21(5): 583-590. [32] Singh, A. K., A. Singh, and M. Engelhardt. 1997. The Lognormal Distribution in Environmental Applications. US EPA Technology Support Center Issue. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. [33] USEPA. 2009. Statistical analysis of groundwater monitoring data at RCRA facilities. Unified Guidance. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Program Implementation and Information Division, USEPA, Washington, D.C. EPA 530-R-09-007. [34] USEPA. 2002. Calculating upper confidence limits for exposure point concentrations at hazardous waste sites. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, USEPA, Washington, D.C. OSWER 9285.6-10; USEPA. 2006. Data quality assessment: statistical methods for practitioners. Office of Environmental Information, USEPA, Washington, D.C. EPA 240-B-06-003. [35] Even in studies that utilize the EPA recommended 75th percentile of reference sites or the 25th percentile of all sites approaches (often funded by the EPA), other methods are also recommended to be used in conjunction with or in lieu of the 75th percentile approach. Wang and colleagues (2007) used several methods to estimate potential reference thresholds for nutrients in wadeable streams, including a regression modeling approach (intercept of nutrient concentrations and anthropogenic impact), regression tree analysis of biological responses, and the EPA 25th percentile approach for all sites. They did not recommend the use of the percentile approach without corroborating biological response data. Herlihy and Sifneos (2008) found that when they compared the EPA 25th percentile all streams approach, the 75th percentile reference stream approach, and a regression model of nutrients and human disturbance, there were problems with the application of both EPA approaches to setting nutrient criteria. The 25th percentiles of all streams were significantly lower than the 75th percentile of reference streams, calling into question the validity of the EPA guidance. (See Attachment 4 for a further discussion of these issues.) [36] Significantly, the Rule does not include or incorporate any methodology to confirm the results of the reference stream analysis, even though the choice of screening methods for reference sites significantly impacts the value of the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3397Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 75th percentile. Stevenson and others (2008) only recommended a stream nutrient criterion based on the 75th percentile of reference streams after it was confirmed by multiple dose-response change-point analyses of biological variables. They recommend the use of multiple approaches for setting criteria and the use of experiments to confirm causal relationships, none of which have been performed by EPA in the process of proposing nutrient criteria for Florida streams. (See Attachment 4 for further discussion of these issues.) [37] Technical Support Document for U.S. E.P.A.'s Proposed Rule for Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Surface Fresh Waters, at 2-12 (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-000-3.2) [38] When FDEP proposed draft numeric nutrient criteria in 2009, it used the 90th percentile of benchmark streams for almost every stream region. FDEP stated that using "the 75th percentile would result in an excessive Type I error (25% of benchmark sites...would be incorrectly classified as impaired)." FDEP only used the 75th percentile in an extreme case where only three benchmark sites were available for a region (in contrast, EPA has 22 reference sites for that region). 

# Comment ID 1217-2.001.063

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Numerous waterbodies in Florida are biologically healthy even at nutrient levels well above EPA's proposed levels. The nutrient reductions mandated by the proposed criteria are not tied to, nor have they been shown necessarily to improve, stream health. Mosaic offers several proposals to modify the proposed IPVs to address the diversity of particular Florida streams and to reflect more properly the complex and subtle nature of the relationship between nutrient levels and stream biological impacts, rather than to disregard that critical relationship. For example, Mosaic advocates (a) setting IPVs at the 95th percentile of nutrient levels for reference streams rather than the proposed 75th percentile, (b) applying IPVs to only those streams with a Stream Condition Index ("SCI") score of less than 40, and (c); providing exceptions to the IPVs where there is a demonstrable stressor-response relationship between nutrient levels and a stream's biological health. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.007

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Section 5 illustrates a problem with setting multiple criteria using reference waterbody (i.e., benchmark streams) distributions. The problem lies with the independent development and application of multiple criteria using this approach. The result is that a much greater fraction of benchmark streams will actually be declared to be impaired relative to what might be expected from the distribution percentile selected. For example, using the 75th percentile of benchmark streams for TN and TP criteria development, NCASI shows that approximately 44% of the benchmark streams would be expected, statistically, to be designated as impaired. This percentage is much greater than the 25%

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3398Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams that is intuitively expected based on the chosen distribution percentile. Developing additional criteria in this way or using the "all streams" approach exacerbates the problem, eventually leading to a situation where essentially all reference/benchmark streams are declared to be impaired for some water quality parameter. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.049

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Conclusion Establishing TP and TN criteria for reference (and therefore assumed to be biologically healthy) waterbodies at the 75th percentile of nutrient concentrations, as EPA has done to derive its proposed numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters, results in estimated error rates of 25%; that is, 25% of the biologically healthy population of flowing waters is expected to exceed each 29 nutrient criteria thus being incorrectly declared unhealthy. When these criteria are applied to all waters of the state, this analysis suggests that a high rate of false declarations of nutrient impairment will result. In addition, the proposed criteria provide relatively poor indicators of unhealthy, non-attaining waters. These high decision error rates may result because EPA's proposed criteria do not appear to have been developed with a systematic approach intended to characterize and manage a key component of uncertainty in the stressor-response relationship. Use of such an approach, based on EPA's systematic planning/DQO process as illustrated in this analysis, might have led to more consistent treatment in criteria development for lakes and for flowing waters. For lakes, this uncertainty is reduced by allowing higher modified criteria when information on the biological response variable is available. A similar approach could have been, but was not, applied to flowing waters to dramatically reduce the potential for designated use decision errors associated with proposed criteria. It should be noted, however, that the absence of any correlation between causal and response variables dictates that Eni cannot be reduced to below 50%. Therefore, among the population of flowing waters found to exceed any TP criterion, 50% are likely to be mischaracterized as impaired for the response variable when they are not. As long as is small, the practical implications of this may be relatively small. However, this fact illustrates that without strong statistical correlations between causal and response variables that reflect a cause-effect relationship, numeric nutrient criteria are prone to decision errors with important environmental, social, and economic consequences. Further, the underlying basis for EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria is suspect without strong evidence of cause-effect relationships with biological responses. Nonetheless, use of modified criteria when direct information on biological health is available (as EPA is proposing for lakes nutrient criteria) may considerably reduce designated use attainment decision error rates for flowing waters. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.077

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 5.0 Independent Application of Criteria Derived Using the Percentile Approach Leads to Excessive Impairment

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3399Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Declarations for Reference/Benchmark Streams Summary EPA has chosen to use percentile distributions of reference/benchmark waterbodies as a basis for proposed TN and TP criteria. In doing so, EPA has failed to recognize or communicate that as additional criteria are derived using this approach, the number of reference waterbodies declared to be impaired (when in fact they are not) increases rapidly. Any continuation of this practice would ultimately result in nearly all reference waterbodies being incorrectly declared to be impaired for at least one criterion. Main Technical Findings

• EPA has chosen to base criteria on condition represented at the 75th percentile of the distribution of reference or benchmark streams.

• Reference or benchmark streams are selected as representative of waters that are not significantly impacted by anthropogenic sources of pollution.

• Application of a single criterion at the 75th percentile means that 25% of benchmark streams are incorrectly declared to be impaired.

• Independent application of two criteria (e.g., TN and TP) at the 75th percentile means that about 44% of benchmark streams will be incorrectly declared to be impaired.

• If EPA had instead chosen to use the 25th percentile of all streams approach to criteria derivation for TN and TP, approximately 94% of all streams would be incorrectly declared to be impaired for TN and/or TP.

• If EPA were to continue the practice of setting criteria using a percentile of stream conditions, ultimately nearly all reference streams would be incorrectly declared to be impaired for some parameter. Specific Comments and Corresponding Science Analysis EPA has chosen an approach for setting numeric nutrient criteria that is based upon selecting a percentile of the distribution of TN and TP concentrations observed in flowing waters in Florida. EPA considered two options in this regard: the 25th percentile of "all waters" and the 75th percentile of reference or benchmark waters that are considered to meet Florida's water quality standards. In defining criteria using this approach, EPA appears to have developed independent distributions for TN and TP in these waters and selected the criteria independently. That is, in defining the TN criteria no consideration was given to the corresponding TP value of each stream, and vice versa. One important problem with this approach is that as the number of criteria derived in this way increases, the number of waterbodies that will exceed the criteria and thus are implicitly declared to be impaired even though they may be considered biologically healthy (e.g., see Ice and Binkley 2003), increases rapidly and to an extent such that ultimately all waterbodies (including reference waterbodies) will be declared impaired based on one or more criteria. The analysis presented below describes the phenomenon. Selection of the 75th percentile as a criterion value means that 25% of reference waterbodies will exceed the established criterion. If an additional criterion value is derived from the same set of reference waterbodies, a portion of the waterbodies that did not exceed the first criterion would be expected to exceed the second, thus increasing the number of waterbodies exceeding at least one criterion. If the two criteria are independent (which is the case for TN and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3400Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams TP in Florida benchmark streams), the number of waterbodies exceeding the ith criterion is predictable based on the distribution percentile chosen. Figure 5.1 shows the rate at which the proportion of reference waterbodies will exceed one or more criterion as the number of independent criteria increases. Curves for the 75th and 90th percentiles are shown. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 5.1. Declaration of Benchmark/Reference Flowing Waters as Impaired vs. Number of Criteria 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 1292-1.001.079

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. A similar analysis can be conducted for the "all waterbodies" approach considered by EPA. The outcome of that analysis is shown in Figure 5.2. As is apparent in the figure, the independent development of just two criteria that are based on the 25th percentile of all waterbodies results in greater than 90% of all waters exceeding one or both criteria. As the number of criteria derived in this way increases to just four, virtually all waters would exceed one or more criteria and thus be declared impaired. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Figure 5.2. Declaration of All Flowing Waters as Impaired vs. Number of Criteria 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 1303-1.001.004

Author Name: Bessey J. Organization: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Flowing Waters Instream Protection Values: EPA proposes to use the 75th percentile concentration of biologically healthy sites to set nitrogen and phosphorus limits. We believe this method does not fully assess the natural range of variability within Florida streams and request a higher percentile be investigated to more accurately account for the upper range. 

# Comment ID 1304-1.001.029

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3401Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Specifically, EPA chose to base the standards on conditions represented at the 75th percentile of the distribution of reference streams. Reference streams are selected as representative of waters that are not significantly impacted by anthropogenic sources of pollution. Application of a single criterion at the 75th percentile means that 25% of benchmark streams are considered impaired, again, when they are not. Independent application of two criteria (e.g., TN and TP) at the 75th percentile result in a prediction that 44% of benchmark streams will be considered impaired. EPA has either failed to recognize this problem with the use of the distribution approach to criteria derivation or at least has failed to communicate the problem to stakeholders. For EPA to rely on a criteria derivation procedure that can be shown statistically to result in a near 100% error rate; i.e., would result in the designation of nearly all benchmark streams as impaired for at least one parameter when, in fact, they are not impaired at all.



# Comment ID 1348-1.001.010

Author Name: Vick J. Organization: Gulf Power Company Prior to abandoning its own nutrient criteria rulemaking, [3] the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) selected "reference streams" (a.k.a. benchmark sites) in Florida's Bone Valley, North Central, Panhandle, and Peninsular regions. These streams are the "best of the best" when it comes to good water quality in Florida. An EPA peer-review team commended the scientific rigor of FDEP's approach to selecting these minimally disturbed streams as reference sites, and EPA representatives even visited several of these streams. [4] Despite EPA's prior endorsement of FDEP's selection of reference streams, over one-third of these biologically healthy streams fail to meet one or more of the applicable EPA regional criteria (i.e. in-stream protective values) for the streams. The following charts demonstrate that numerous streams in the North Central, Panhandle, and Peninsular regions that are considered healthy by FDEP's state water quality experts fail to meet EPA's proposed in-stream protective values.[6] [3] According to FDEP Secretary Michael Sole, FDEP abandoned its rulemaking upon learning of the Consent Decree between EPA and EarthJustice. FDEP Secretary Michael Sole, Florida Governor and Cabinet December 8, 2009 Board Meeting, Official Transcript at http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/cabinet/mart.htmI . See also FDEP, Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters Published January 26, 2010, 1 (Feb. 15, 2010) ("EPA did not fully acknowledge basic limitation of 'reference approach,' that there is no link between criteria and impairment (no 'dose-response' relationship)"). [4] FDEP, Comments Regarding Stream Criteria, Review Draft, 12-13 (March 12, 2010). [6] FDEP, Comments Regarding Stream Criteria, Review Draft, 44 (March 12, 2010). Original comment letter contains additional information in the two tables on page 4 of the pdf regarding the percent of FDEP reference sites that will not meet EPA criteria. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3402Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1348-1.001.011

Author Name: Vick J. Organization: Gulf Power Company The EPA proposed nutrient standards will result in a significant fraction of Florida's most pristine streams being labeled as impaired. These noncompliant, yet pristine, streams include flowing waters in state parks and conservation lands, such as the Econfina River in the Econfina River State Park and Black Water Creek in the Seminole State Forest. [7] This outcome reveals that EPA's approach is flawed and should be re-evaluated. [7] FDEP, Evaluation of Florida Benchmark Site Exceedance Frequency Relative to EPA's Proposed Instream 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. The streams cited in the text fail instream protective values for one or more parameters. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.114

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County EPA is requesting comment on its analysis of what constitutes a protective threshold. We submit that without supporting empirical evidence of a stressor-response relationship established with some weight of evidence, any numeric criterion proposed based simply on the ambient concentrations of nutrients in biologically healthy streams will not necessarily be protective of instream biota. Further, we believe that implementation of these criteria will lead to unnecessary burdens on water resource managers whose biologically healthy streams do not achieve the criterion values. EPA has already established that some proportion of healthy streams will not achieve these criterion values. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.175

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Suplee et al. (2007) evaluated the use of the 75th percentile as a criterion value based on the reference stream approach and concluded that a more appropriate percentile of a reference streams distribution was the 86th percentile. They suggested that the 86th percentile of the distribution tended to represent the "impact to use" nutrient concentration, meaning that values below the 86th percentile of the reference streams may be overly stringent in protecting impacts to designated uses. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.181

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3403Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County EPA goes on to select the 75th percentile of the distribution as the threshold value for an annual geometric mean. Based on EPA's interpretation of the distributional statistics this means that 25% of the "biologically healthy streams" would fail the threshold on average. Again, based on our interpretation of the distributional statistics method, this would mean that any of the streams may be expected to exceed the 75th percentile 25% of the year in which an annual geometric mean was calculated. Again, the lack of data analysis given in the rule and supporting documentation makes it difficult to ascertain how different the individual streams were with respect to their distributions of nutrients both within and between regions. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.014

Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division 1-2) In deriving the stream criteria, given that all sites were determined to be biologically healthy and meet aquatic life use, EPA should either set the criteria at a higher percentile (i.e., 95th rather than 75th), or require biological validation before declaring impairment of the waterbody. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.084

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners The third step in EPA's approach was to select a threshold value from the cumulative distribution from which the regionally specific numeric nutrient criterion for TN and TP will be established. EPA states as an example that "selection of the central tendency of a log normal distribution would imply that half of the biologically healthy sites are not attaining their designated uses". Our understanding of the description of the process is that this statement is a misconception. Based on the description of the process described above, our interpretation of this example is that any given stream might exceed the threshold value 50% of the time. This is a very different interpretation and has important implications with respect to the evaluation strategy described subsequently in section d on page 84 of the rule document. For example, if ten streams were used in the development of the criterion over 20 years of data and all streams had identical distributions, this would lead to 200 data points, half of which would be over the 50th percentile threshold value. Each individual stream would also have 50% of its annual averages over that value. In general, the rule needs far great detail in the description of the data used and the evaluation strategy than was provided in either the rule or the TSD. EPA goes on to select the 75th percentile of the distribution as the threshold value for an annual geometric mean.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3404Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Based on EPA's interpretation of the distributional statistics this means that 25% of the "biologically healthy streams" would fail the threshold on average. Again, based on our interpretation of the distributional statistics method, this would mean that any of the streams may be expected to exceed the 75th percentile 25% of the year in which an annual geometric mean was calculated. Again, the lack of data analysis given in the rule and supporting documentation makes it difficult to ascertain how different the individual streams were with respect to their distributions of nutrients both within and between regions. EPA is requesting comment on its analysis of what constitutes a protective threshold. We submit that without supporting empirical evidence of a stressor-response relationship established with some weight of evidence, any numeric criterion proposed based simply on the ambient concentrations of nutrients in biologically healthy streams will not necessarily be protective of instream biota. Further, we believe that implementation of these criteria will lead to unnecessary burdens on water resource managers whose biologically healthy streams do not achieve the criterion values. EPA has already established that some proportion of healthy streams will not achieve these criterion values. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.086

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Suplee et al. (2007) evaluated the use of the 75th percentile as a criterion value based on the reference stream approach and concluded that a more appropriate percentile of a reference streams distribution was the 86th percentile. They suggested that the 86th percentile of the distribution tended to represent the "impact to use" nutrient concentration, meaning that values below the 86th percentile of the reference streams may be overly stringent in protecting impacts to designated uses. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 5. Hypothetical total phosphorus distribution of 10000 simulated observations with a geometric mean (i.e., 0.739) based on EPA Bone Valley criterion for streams and a standard deviation of 0.15. Distribution is show as lognormal (left) and log transformed (right). Descriptive statistics are inset. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1360-1.001.005

Author Name: Cook R. Organization: Daytona Beach Utilities Department

- These limits ignore the intended use of the water body. The adoption of these limits would actually expand the list of water bodies which are considered impaired. FDEP suggests that up to 80% of their "reference" or pristine sites will now be considered impaired under the new criteria. For clarification: impaired means polluted to the point where the water body does not meet its designated use. These pristine waters have not changed but the definition of impaired would change under this rule. Any criteria should have a biological validation before listing a water body as impaired.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3405Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1364-1.001.007

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida B. The Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria Should be Based on Sound Science and Data The Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria must be based on sound science and take into consideration the extensive database of site specific water quality data available through the FDEP and local governments such as Lee County. Lee County believes that the EPA's methodology of using the 75th percentile of nutrient concentrations will result in a large number of healthy water bodies being incorrectly classified as impaired. The numeric nutrient limits should be set to provide protection to our valuable water resources, but at limits that are both based upon best available site specific data and scientifically defensible.[1] [1] The proposed rule states that the Numeric Nutrient Criteria will apply to "waters of the United States," the definition of which can be found in the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 230.3(s). Lee County has been informed that the database of water quality data that was used during development of the criteria includes samples collected from isolated waters that do not meet the definition of "waters of the United States." Statistically, it is inappropriate for EPA to apply criteria to "waters of the United States" based on samples that were taken from water bodies not meeting the definition. 

# Comment ID 1364-1.001.017

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida Under EPA's "one size fits all" approach to water quality establishment, over one third of Florida's "reference streams", streams determined by the FDEP to be biologically healthy, will fail to meet the EPA's criteria. During a presentation to the Florida Legislature, the Secretary of FDEP stated that over 80% of Florida's pristine water bodies would be considered impaired. The Secretary of the FDEP articulated that compliance with the EPA's criteria on a statewide level will "force an investment of billions of dollars without environmental benefits." 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.002

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works Most of the justification EPA gives for the standards it is setting are from statistical distributions and mathematical conventions. Essentially, the proposed standards are mathematically based, but not science-based, since they do not establish any sort of "trigger" concentration at which waterbodies begin to be impaired. They do not even establish that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3406Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations of the impaired waterways are statistically significantly different from those of the unimpaired waterways with any degree of confidence. The 75th percentile is simply a standard statistical convention. EPA could have as easily chosen the 60th or the 80th. EPA does not have enough knowledge about nutrient dynamics and their ecological effects in Florida, and particularly in South Florida, to present a scientifically compelling case for the numeric nutrient criteria proposed in this rule. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.017

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works p. 80 et. seq. EPA needs to determine whether any adverse ecological effects are observed either in-stream or downstream at the 75th percentile value or whether a different percentile value would be more appropriate. It may not be reasonable to expect waterbodies in developed areas to mimic the ecology of those in pristine conditions. The 75th percentile of a pristine waterbody does not necessarily provide any information on the nutrient level a waterbody can have and still meet its designated use. 

# Comment ID 1414-1.001.004

Author Name: Poltak R. Organization: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission EPA determined that the statistical relationships between the biological response variables and nutrient concentrations in the Florida stream data were too weak to use for deriving nutrient criteria. As an alternative approach, EPA chose a 75th percentile derived from a distribution of nutrient concentrations from biologically healthy sites on the basis that it is "representative of an appropriate and well-founded protective threshold." It is questionable as to how this is determined to be a protective threshold, if a correlation between biological response and nutrient concentrations could not be established. Given this situation, the scientifically defensible approach would be to conduct additional research to account for other environmental factors that might be obscuring the relationships so that the statistical analysis could be refined. States should not be required to adopt nutrient criteria for waters until dose-response relationships have been documented scientifically. As it is very difficult to relax a water quality criterion once it has been adopted, it is more appropriate to begin with adopting biological response criteria in which there is a high level confidence, and then refine and add different types of limits as scientific consensus is developed. 

# Comment ID 1414-1.001.007

Author Name: Poltak R. Organization: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 4) Nutrients are not threshold pollutants.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3407Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Application of a single threshold concentration of nutrients for broad geographic areas suggests a commonality of response, assimilative capacity, human effect, and biological status. This could diminish the diversity of ecosystems by creating a truncated distribution of conditions below an artificial and arbitrary criterion. For example, the proposed nutrient criteria for rivers and streams are based on the 75th percentile from a distribution of nutrient concentrations in "biological healthy streams" in four broad geologically defined areas in Florida. Application of these criteria would allow for significant increases in nutrients to minimally enriched waters below the 75th percentile before exceeding criteria and triggering management action, and will also inappropriately focus management action on naturally enriched water by creating an artificial and arbitrary criterion. Florida DEP estimates that approximately 35 percent of the State's most pristine streams will be impaired based on the proposed criteria. 

# Comment ID 1416-1.001.020

Author Name: Alves J. Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. 3. EPA's Proposed NNC Are Not Scientifically Defensible The preamble to the proposed rule explains that EPA used a "statistical distribution methodology" to derive total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) standards for Florida's streams. In essence, EPA divided the state into geographical regions; analyzed nutrient data from a set of biologically healthy streams in each region; and then set the numeric nutrient criteria at the 75% percentile of the TP and TN data for these streams. This approach -- which has the effect of declaring by administrative fiat that 25% of Florida's biologically healthy streams are impaired by nutrients -­ confirms that EPA grossly underestimated the challenge of establishing scientifically valid numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's streams and rivers. 

# Comment ID 1416-1.001.024

Author Name: Alves J. Organization: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. (a) The Reference Stream Problem Prior to abandoning its own nutrient criteria rulemaking,[36] the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) selected "reference streams" (a.k.a. benchmark sites) in Florida's Bone Valley, North Central, Panhandle, and Peninsular regions. These streams are the "best of the best" when it comes to good water quality in Florida. An EPA peer-review team lauded the scientific rigor of FDEP's approach to selecting these minimally disturbed streams as reference sites, and EPA representatives even visited several of these streams.[37] Notably, one EPA reviewer stated, "The rigorousness of the benchmark screening process leads me to believe that all nutrient concentrations observed at the benchmark sites are fully protective of the use."[38]

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3408Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Despite EPA's prior endorsement of FDEP's selection of reference streams, over one-third of these biologically healthy streams fail to meet one or more of the applicable EPA regional criteria (i.e. in-stream protective values) for the streams. The following charts demonstrate that numerous streams in the North Central, Panhandle, and Peninsular regions that are considered healthy by FDEP's state water quality experts fail to meet EPA's proposed in-stream protective values.[39] Original comment letter contains additional information in the table of the Percent of FDEP Reference Sites that Fail EPA Total Nitrogen Criteria Based on 1 in 3 Year Exceedance, Percent of FDEP Reference Sites that Fail EPA Total Nitrogen Criteria Based on Long-term Average Exceedance, Percent of FDEP Reference Sites that Fail EPA Total Phosphorus Criteria Based on 1 in 3 Year Exceedance, and Percent of FDEP Reference Sites that Fail EPA Total Phosphorus Criteria Based on Long-term Average Exceedance on page 16-17 of the pdf. See original comment letter. In its haste to meet the deadlines that resulted from EPA's substandard necessity determination and the corresponding consent decree, EPA has proposed nutrient standards that will result in a significant fraction of Florida's most pristine streams being labeled as impaired. These noncompliant, yet pristine, streams include flowing waters in state parks and conservation lands, such as the Econfina River in the Econfina River State Park and Black Water Creek in the Seminole State Forest.[40] This outcome evidences the arbitrary and capricious nature of EPA's crude regional standards, and it demonstrates that nutrient standards must be set at the nutrient levels at which water bodies will exhibit imbalances of naturally occurring populations of flora and fauna. It is extremely problematic that in many cases these arbitrary standards will replace carefully-conceived and scientific TMDLs that have been approved by EPA. [36] According to FDEP Secretary Michael Sole, FDEP abandoned its rulemaking upon learning of the Consent Decree between EPA and EarthJustice. FDEP Secretary Michael Sole, Florida Governor and Cabinet, December 8, 2009 Board Meeting, Official Transcript available at http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/cabinet/mart.html.SeealsoFDEP

. Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters Published January 26,2010, I (Feb. 15,2010) ("EPA did not fully acknowledge basic limitation of 'reference approach,' that there is no link between criteria and impairment (no 'dose-response' relationship)"). [37] FDEP, Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and Springs/Clear Streams 12-13 (Mar. 12, 2010), available at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp.nutrients/docs/federaUfdep_comments_streams_criteria.pdf

. [38] Id. at 13 (emphasis added). [39] Id at 44. [40] FDEP, Evaluation of Florida Benchmark Site Exceedance Frequency Relative to EPA's Proposed Instream Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs). (Feb. I, 2010) at 4, available at http://www.dep.state.tl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federaUevaLepa_proposed_criteria_020210.pdf . The streams cited in the text fail instream protective values for one or more parameters. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.021

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division EPA used the 75th percentile concentration of all biologically healthy Sites as proposed criteria threshold to compensate for the broader reference site approach. This may result in many reference sites failing to meet the criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3409Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1433-1.001.004

Author Name: McIndoe J. Organization: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Comments on the Proposed Criteria for Rivers and Streams ADEM supports EPA's use of Nutrient Watershed Regions to account for natural variability in geology, hydrology, and nutrient availability. ADEM also supports the incorporation of magnitude, duration, and frequency in the development of numeric nutrient criteria. In particular, the use of the annual geometric mean based on a minimum number of samples will account for the inherent variability of nutrient concentrations measured through different seasons of the year. However, EPA's selection of the 75th percentile values for total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) calculated from data obtained from biologically healthy streams fails to demonstrate that the resulting criteria are not overly restrictive. The proposed criteria will inherently result in unnecessary TP and TN reductions. The lack of a suitable response parameter will lead to expensive management actions to control nutrients with the possibility of no additional benefit to water quality or designated uses. 

# Comment ID 1433-1.001.007

Author Name: McIndoe J. Organization: Alabama Department of Environmental Management FDEP has also concluded that the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for flowing rivers and streams will likely add a number of streams to Florida's Verified List of Impaired Waters even though there is no indication that designated uses are not being met in these streams. In the Panhandle Nutrient Watershed Region, it is likely that the proposed criteria would require nutrient reductions for several streams flowing into Florida from Alabama even in the absence of nutrient impacts to designated uses and in watersheds with few nutrient sources. 

# Comment ID 1445-1.001.009

Author Name: Lewis T. Organization: Florida Association of Special Districts iii. EPA 's Selection ofthe 75th Percentile of a Dataset is Arbitrary As stated above, EPA selected the 75th percentile of the reference sites (streams and canals) in deriving the proposed numeric criteria. EPA rationalized this action by stating the 75th percentile represents a "reasonable upper bound of where there is the greatest confidence that biologically healthy sites will be represented." Calculating the 75th percentile of the reference sites means that 25 percent of the reference sites selected as being protective would fail EPA's

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3410Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams proposed criteria. Picking the 75th percentile in order to "insure biologically healthy sites will be represented" is the direct result of EPA's failure to employ sound scientific principles in selecting the reference sites and compiling sufficient data sets. If EPA would have implemented more robust selection and data collection methodologies, then there would have been a higher confidence that biological healthy sites were represented. As it stands, EPA's use of the 75th percentile is an attempt to correct EPA's reference site and data deficiencies. Correcting a mistake with a mistake is arbitrary. Further, by taking the 75th percentile, EPA has essentially excluded the upper part of the distribution which represents natural features that exists within Florida and should be accounted for in deriving numeric criteria. EPA's reference site selection methodology and calculation of the 75th percentile has so narrowed the basis for deriving the proposed criteria that EPA's methodology is not representative of the natural conditions of Florida's surface waters. This means a vast majority of Florida's surface waters will ultimately fail EPA's proposed criteria. This was evidenced by DEP's assessment of whether EPA's proposed criteria were overly protective. DEP compared sites that were documented to be meeting their designated uses for aquatic life support and contained minimal, if any, human related nutrient concentrations. Approximately 20% of the sites failed EPA's total nitrogen criteria and approximately 35% failed the total phosphorous criterion. These sites are pristine waters that are functioning as healthy natural systems with little to no human disturbance; however, there is a high nonattainment percentage. It is therefore evident that EPA's derivation methodology is flawed and should be reevaluated. Finally, EPA failed to consider duration and frequency of the criteria when establishing the criteria. EPA is proposing allowing an exceedance frequency of no more than once in a three year period. Because EPA failed to consider duration and frequency in calculating the numeric criteria (the 75th Percentile), the regulated community will actually have to attain concentrations lower than what EPA is proposing to achieve compliance over the long run. This necessarily ignores the biological reality that flowing waters are just that, flowing. Residence time in these systems is low and any event that results in higher nutrient levels will not be a long term elevation. EPA has failed to factor the dynamics of flowing systems in deriving the criteria and developing a suitable assessment methodology. 

# Comment ID 1465-1.001.003

Author Name: Ornberg K. Organization: Seminole County Public Works Specific comments to the proposed rule include: 1. Incorporate biology as verification ofimpairment conditions Applying the proposed criteria NNC to waterbodies in Seminole County yields a significant number of waterbodies classified as impaired. More significant than the number of impairments is the lack of consideration to the nutrient of concern or biological conditions to verify the impairment. It has been observed that the same streams that would be classified as impaired under the NNC consistently exhibit excellent biological indicators of a healthy waterway. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.123

Author Name: Herz W.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3411Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 4. Assuming nutrient impairment at the 75th percentile of nutrients in reference waters has no relationship to use protection needs. EPA's selection of the TP and TN levels at the 75th percentile TP for criteria selection has no objective scientific basis. Moreover, selection of this numeric criteria level means that, at a minimum, at least 25% of all pristine areas will be considered impaired. The number will actually be greater since compliance with both criteria (TN and TP) is mandated. Scientifically defensible criteria must be based on impairment thresholds, not arbitrarily selected percentiles of a dataset. As the selection of a reference water percentile has no objective relationship to the nutrient level at the impairment threshold, the approach is not scientifically defensible and fails to meet CWA objectives. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.130

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Even if the reference approach were valid, EPA's decision to assume impairment when a stream has TP and TN levels at the 75th percentile of the levels found in reference streams has no scientific basis and will lead to over regulation as 25 percent of pristine waters will automatically be deemed to be impaired. Setting criteria that would require the use of resources to "restore" such unimpacted sites would constitute unwise public policy, and would contradict Florida Law. See Florida Statutes, 403. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.155

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Making matters somewhat worse, EPA selected the 75th percentile concentration in an ecoregion as the "safe" nutrient level. This will result in at least 25 percent of unimpaired waters being designated as impaired. Thus, like the approach EPA used to develop nutrient targets for Clear Acidic Lakes, this approach is actually based on antidegradation principles, not the required criteria derivation "cause-and-effect/impairment threshold" principles that are found in the National Guidelines and that are necessary to comply with EPA's water quality standards regulations. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.071

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District D. The Precision Associated with the Percentiles Used to Define Nutrient Thresholds Have Not Been Adequately

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3412Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Assessed The reference condition approach ignores the lack of evidence on nutrient stressors in streams, leading to the high potential for over-protection or possibly under-protection. There is no technical basis supporting the assertion that levels of nutrients at a few reference sites accurately define what is achievable at other sites to meet some prescribed level of biological condition or use. Selecting a threshold based on a probability value (e.g., 75th percentile) assumes that all the sites in the population of that region function similarly, and ignores the spatial and temporal (seasonal) variability inherent in the data. The precision of the proposed criteria is determined by an analysis of the variability in the data at both reference sites and sites where the proposed criteria will be applied to determine use attainment. Such analyses have not been completed. The District substantially agrees with comments made by FDEP in its Streams Document (See FDEP comment D) and supports FDEPs 90th percentile approach with accompanying biological validation given the uncertainties inherent in a reference basal approach. 

# Comment ID 1477-1.001.014

Author Name: Rudd F. Organization: Florida Engineering Society Given that all reference sites have been demonstrated to meet aquatic life support requirements, EPA should either set criteria at a much higher percentile, or require biological validation before declaring impairment. 

# Comment ID 1477-1.001.023

Author Name: Rudd F. Organization: Florida Engineering Society

- EPA ignored its own Science Advisory Board and published guidance (National Guidelines) on how to develop scientifically defensible standards which very clearly informed EPA that water quality standards must be based on a well documented "cause and effect" relationship. EPA's proposal admits the canal and stream protection standards are not based on a "cause and effect" demonstration; instead the 75 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. 

# Comment ID 1480-1.001.011

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3413Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

6. It is discomforting to know that FDEP's assessment of the reference sites that were used by EPA to develop State criteria indicated that 80% of the reference sites will not attain the EPA downstream protection values for total nitrogen. However, not all these downstream waterbodies are experiencing biological health degradation. 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.013

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport

• Given that all sites have been demonstrated to meet aquatic life use support, EPA should either set the criteria at a higher percentile (i.e., 90th), rather than 75th, or require biological validation before declaring impairment 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.014

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport

• 35% of Florida's most pristine surface waters will fail EPA's proposed in-stream criteria 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.049

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Utilizing a 75th percentile as the basis for the reference site approach is also rationally-sound, since it holds the greatest statistical confidence and minimizes bias for nutrient-tolerant waterbodies or data produced from extreme events. Selecting a percentile greater than the 75th would be less representative of a majority of the data. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.006

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority They are without question a more accurate description of protective nutrient levels than the criteria in the Proposed Rule, both for Instream Protection Values, which were established through the EPA's use of the reference condition/reference stream approach, and Downstream Protection Values. The uncertainty associated with the calculation of Instream Protection Values and Downstream Protection Values in the Proposed Rule is illustrated below.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3414Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Examination of the statistics provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Proposed Rule illustrates the high variability in observed nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in healthy streams, and demonstrates how a single subjective decision (i.e. the selection of the percentile of the reference streams used to represent the criteria) can result in vastly different criteria. The information originally provided in Table 2-4 of the TSD is expanded below to show calculated 50th and 90th percentile values, along with the 75th percentile value that was chosen as the benchmark by EPA for establishing numeric nutrient criteria in the Proposed Rule. Original comment letter contains additional information in the table Nutrient Concentrations (mg/L) at Different Percentiles for Biologically Healthy Streams by Region on page 14. See original comment letter. This table shows the large range in concentrations observed at the reference streams in each region, and provides insight into how much the selected criteria could vary based on the percentile selected. Examining candidate percentiles to be used for the criteria, the concentrations representing the 50th to 90th percentile vary up to 2.7-fold for nitrogen (1.33 vs. 0.48 mglL for Panhandle) and 4.8-fold for phosphorus (0.75 vs. 0.16 mg/L for North Central). Depending on the specific percentile selected to represent the criteria, vastly different values can be obtained. Even narrowing the consideration down to the 90th and 75th percentiles, the range of concentrations still varies by a factor of up to 2.1 for phosphorus (0.75 vs. 0.36 mglL for North Central) and 1.6 for nitrogen (1.33 vs. 0.82 mglL for Panhandle). These large ranges demonstrate that the reference condition approach can effectively estimate target concentrations within, at best, a factor of two. This arbitrary method will lead to overly protective criteria in many (if not all) of Florida's surface waters. In tnrn, these overly protective criteria will cause, by being included in permits, the expenditure of billions of dollars throughout the state of Florida to meet permit limits without any certainty that these expenditures are necessary to obtain any environmental benefit. 

# Comment ID 1532-1.001.007

Author Name: Stacey P. Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection For example, the proposed nutrient criteria for rivers and streams are based on the 75th percentile from a distribution of nutrient concentrations in "biological healthy streams" in four broad geologically defined areas in FL. If adopted, application of those criteria would: 1) potentially allow for significant increases in nutrients to minimally.enriched waters below the 75th percentile before exceeding criteria and triggering management action; 2) inappropriately focus management action on waters naturally enriched at the high end of a normal distribution of condition by Creating an artificial and arbitrary criteria (Type I error); and 3) lead to false negatives for waters that may be in need of management (Type II error). FDEP estimates that approximately 35% of the State's most pristine streams will be technically "impaired" based on the proposed criteria leading to misdirected and fruitless management action. 

# Comment ID 1532-1.001.012

Author Name: Stacey P. Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3415Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Nutrients are one of several limiting factors affecting primary production in rivers and streams. To date, no practicable way to apply these varied relationships has been devised that would reasonably avoid false positives and negatives, and none is likely forthcoming on a system class basis. Scientific evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, EPA chose a 75th percentile derived from a distribution of nutrient concentrations from biologically healthy sites on the basis arguing that it is "representative of an appropriate and well-founded protective threshold". It is questionable as to how this is determined to be a protective threshold if a reasonable correlation between biological response and nutrient concentrations is not demonstrated. As introduced above, the relationship between concentrations and dose, which is the more appropriate measure of stress and the driver of productivity response, is also not defined. Nutrient concentrations vary widely in highly dynamic fluvial environments; thus determining response is implausible because a strong correlation between concentration and response is rare, as shown in the TSD. At a minimum, streams meeting aquatic life uses should not be listed as impaired, regardless of the nutrient concentrations levels in those streams. Alternative biological response indicators should be considered that are more directly related to nutrients in streams, and/or are less likely to significantly vary with prevailing stream conditions, to ensure that the proposed criteria are in fact protecting aquatic life uses. As suggested in the EPA 2000 Nutrient Criteria Technical Document for Rivers and Streams, benthic algae species composition responds directly to nutrient and may provide a better indicator of enrichment conditions in streams than assessment of water chemistry, macroinvertebrates or benthic algal biomass. This finding warrants further evaluation. 

# Comment ID 1667-1.001.007

Author Name: Gierach D. Organization: CPH Engineers, Inc. and the City of Sanford The proposed criteria are so stringent that over 80% of Florida's biologically healthy streams do not meet them, which means even the nature itself cannot even meet the EPA's standards (Childs, 2010). 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.074

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection D. Comments on EPA's Selection of the 75th Percentile of a Dataset In the preamble, EPA stated that it selected the 75th percentile of the reference sites because it represents a "reasonable upper bound of where there is the greatest confidence that biologically healthy sites will be represented." However, EPA does not seem to acknowledge that the level of confidence is also directly related to the methodology used to select the references sites and the fact that a cause-effect relationship between nutrients and stream biology was relatively absent. EPA apparently picked the 75th percentile in part based on the less rigorous method EPA used to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3416Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams select reference sites. DEP recommends that EPA utilize DEP's more rigorous benchmark site selection process, and then based on the higher confidence that these sites reflect minimally disturbed sites, EPA select the 90th percentile of the distribution as the proposed criteria. Using the FDEP screening process, reference sites are screened out that are influenced by human induced changes in nutrient concentrations such that observed concentrations are reflective of natural influences like geology and wetlands. Once screened (presuming you have delineated regions appropriately), you can select a higher percentile (90th) that encompasses natural influences above which can be presumed to be elevated by human induced influences in the majority of cases. Choosing a lower than 90th percentile will wrongly implicate natural influences on nutrient concentrations. It should be noted that DEP considered the advantages and disadvantages of using the 75th, 90th, 95th, and 99th percentiles of the benchmark distribution in setting criteria. The DEP and Nutrient TAC concluded that the 75th percentile was too low as it would result in 25% of the benchmark sites being identified as impaired (when duration and frequency is not considered), when they are obviously meeting aquatic life use support. The DEP and TAC also determined that there was less certainty in the inclusiveness of the 95th and 99th percentiles given the sparseness of data at the extreme end of the distribution. DEP did not use the 90th percentile for the Bone Valley nutrient region because data for reference sites were very limited in the region, which meant that there was less certainty in the inclusiveness of the 90th percentile for the region. However, DEP had high assurance that the 90th percentile was inclusive of the distribution of minimally disturbed sites in other nutrient regions due to the sufficiency of the data surrounding this range. The table on page 15 of this document contains correlation coefficients between land uses in the drainage area and nutrient concentrations. The wetland land use is most highly correlated with increases of phosphorus and nitrogen is wetlands. The correlation coefficient between percent wetland area within a drainage area and total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and organic nitrogen were 0.190, 0.329, and 0.439, respectively. However, there was also a relatively strong negative correlation coefficient between percent wetland are and inorganic nitrogen (-0.383). This indicates that wetlands are important sources of organic nitrogen to Florida streams and an important sink for inorganic nitrogen. The relationship between phosphorus and nitrogen and wetlands was much stronger than any other nutrient source, likely because of their contribution of organic nutrients from decaying vegetation (leaf litter). Wetlands represent a natural nutrient source that should not be mitigated. Since land uses linked with wetlands are an influential source of higher nutrients in Florida, it is logical to select a higher percentile of the data distribution to avoid Type I errors (implicating wetland dominated systems as producing undesirable nutrient concentrations in streams). In summary, DEP supports use of the 90th percentile of the benchmark distribution (with biological confirmation), except for the Bone Valley nutrient region where data is limited, based upon the following reasons:

• It is consistent with EPA guidance;

• DEP conducted a rigorous verification to demonstrate that the benchmark sites were minimally disturbed;

• DEP confirmed that healthy, well balanced biological communities were maintained at nutrient levels above the 90th percentile (greatly minimizing Type II error, the mistake of classifying an impaired site as acceptable);

• Wetland land uses and geologic formations are the major source of nutrients in Florida streams and should not be treated as an undesirable source of nutrients. • The stressor/response analyses provided no basis for establishing specific nutrient thresholds;

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3417Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

• Use of a 75th percentile would result in an excessive Type I error (25% of benchmark sites, and a large number of healthy sites would incorrectly be classified as impaired, and subsequent use of resources to "restore" such unimpacted sites would constitute unwise public policy, and would contradict State Law, F.S. 403); and

• Although the 95th and 99th percentiles were considered, DEP determined that there was insufficient certainty in the inclusiveness of the 95th and 99th percentiles given the sparseness of data at the extreme end of the distribution. However, DEP has high assurance that the 90th percentile is inclusive of the distribution of minimally disturbed sites due to the sufficiency of the data surrounding this range in all nutrient regions except for the Bone Valley. In the Bone Valley the 75th percentile may be more appropriate due to the limited amount of data available. It is important to note that, even if the 90th percentile is selected, there is still no evidence that streams with nutrient levels above the 90th percentile will be impacted by those concentrations. For this reason, DEP supports conducting additional evaluation at sites with nutrient values higher than the 90th percentile to definitively establish that nutrients are a reasonable cause of designated use impairment. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.082

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection If EPA intends to continue their focus on Total Nitrogen, it is important to choose a percentile for the criteria that would not identify natural wetlands as impaired. In minimally impacted systems, organic nitrogen constitutes the overriding form of total nitrogen because elevated quantities of inorganic nitrogen are generally associated with an anthropogenic source. Many scientists argue that stream criteria should focus on inorganic nitrogen, such as nitrate-nitrite, because criteria that include the organic nitrogen fraction could include natural sources. Note however, that in DEP's and EPA's analyses, there were no observed cause-effect relationships between nitrate and biological response in streams with color above 40 PCU, meaning nitrate criteria should apply only to clear streams. If EPA promulgates TN criteria simply as a matter of policy, they should account for natural sources of organic nitrogen, recognizing that it constitutes the majority fraction of total nitrogen, and select a higher percentile of the distribution of total nitrogen values, such as the 90th percentile. Criteria that require reductions in natural sources of organic nitrogen (wetlands) do not represent sound science or sound policy. For this reason, DEP recommends that EPA choose the 90th percentile of the Total Nitrogen distribution in a minimally disturbed reference dataset. This would better account for the influence of wetlands, the most significant source of organic nitrogen, on stream nitrogen concentrations. Exceedances of this criterion should be followed by biological confirmation to assess true impairment. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.094

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3418Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

F. Comments on what constitutes a protective threshold? EPA asked for comments on what constitutes a protective threshold. DEP considers a protective threshold to be a level associated with statistical confidence that designated uses will be maintained. However, due to the absence of nutrient dose-response relationships in streams, there is real risk of establishing thresholds that require significant monetary investment to achieve, without providing actual environmental benefit. Additionally, the relationship between nutrients and mercury contamination in fish tissue need to be considered when evaluating use protection. Setting an unnecessarily low nutrient threshold may not be protective of public health. Of course, an erroneously high threshold could also threaten public health, but the lack of any harmful algal response to nutrient concentrations in streams suggests that any criteria based upon the benchmark approach will be fully protective of both public health and aquatic community health. DEP's position is that it is important to set the criteria at levels that are necessary to protect the designated use in accordance with 40 CFR 131.2. When it is difficult to establish that correct level due to lack of a cause/effect relationship, biological validation of nutrient effects in waterbodies that exceed the criteria is essential to prevent unnecessary expenditure of public resources. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.098

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection J. Comments on whether EPA's Stream Criteria are Protective of Designated Uses As stated earlier, neither DEP nor EPA could identify specific thresholds for establishing numeric TP and TN criteria in streams due to the relative lack of a dose-response relationship. The relative lack of a dose-response relationship between nutrients and valued ecological attributes in streams clearly indicates that criteria established through the reference site approach should include additional mechanisms to avoid arbitrary and unnecessary regulatory actions. These mechanisms should include using an upper distribution of the data to establish a threshold (90th percentile) and requiring biological validation of nutrient impairments prior to regulatory action. Assessing the biological health status of a waterbody, and determining the cause of any impairments (nutrients versus some other factor), would ensure that the proper and most cost-effective restoration strategy would be pursued by DEP and EPA. Spending resources reducing nutrients when either the site is biologically healthy or when some other factor is responsible for biological degradation (e.g., habitat or hydrology) would waste limited restoration resources with no environmental benefit. Additionally, spending resources processing site specific criteria every time a biologically healthy site does not attain the criteria would waste resources with no environmental benefit. Therefore, DEP strongly believes that biological confirmation and stressor identification must part of any criteria for streams, especially given the relative lack of a doseresponse relationship and the limitations of the reference site approach. While the DEP's primary concern about unnecessarily low criteria is that they may waste limited restoration resources, it should be noted that such criteria, if attained through chemical treatment for example, may also harm aquatic

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3419Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams ecosystems. This is not surprising given that some level of nutrients are required for ecosystems to function, and excessively low nutrients could inhibit productivity of some waters. Additionally, the complicated relationship between mercury in fish tissue and nutrients suggests that unneeded reductions in nutrients (when no harmful biological effects are occurring) may result in the unintended consequence of increased mercury levels in fish tissue, a significant human health issue (discussed in detail as part of a separate comment). It appears that EPA only considered whether the proposed criteria were protective in terms of preventing eutrophic conditions, and DEP recommends that EPA also consider the impacts to Florida's waters due to artificially low nutrient concentrations. To evaluate whether EPA's proposed stream criteria are overly protective, the DEP evaluated whether the benchmark sites would attain the criteria. Given that these sites have been documented to meet designated uses for aquatic life use support (a healthy, well balanced aquatic community) and also contain minimal if any human caused increases in nutrient concentrations, one would expect that the vast majority of the benchmark sites would attain the proposed criteria. However, the analysis indicates that approximately 24% of the sites do not attain at least one of the expressions of the TP criteria and approximately 34% of the sites do not attain the TN criterion (Tables 8 and 9) (only assessed against instream protection values). Non-attainment rates are even higher in certain areas of the State. In particular, 48% of the DEP reference streams in the Panhandle will fail EPA's proposed stream TP criteria, and 45% of the reference streams in the North Central Nutrient Watershed Regions will fail EPA's proposed TN criteria. Conversely, the Bone Valley Region did not contain any failures. However, this is likely due to two factors. First, there are only three DEP reference streams in the region, meaning the small sample size may not be representative. Second, EPA's site selection methodology resulted in the use of data from Bone Valley streams with more anthropogenic nutrient enrichment (including point source discharges) than the reference streams. The fact that EPA's proposed stream nutrient criteria results in relatively high nonattainment percentages in Florida's reference streams in some areas of the State indicates a flaw in the derivation methodology (not accounting for natural nutrient sources). This is particularly true for EPA's proposed downstream protection values (DPVs), which would result in over 80% of benchmark sites being designated as impaired (see separate analysis in Chapter on DPVs for the protection of estuaries). Original comment letter contains additional information about streams and rivers in Table 8. The percentage of DEP reference sites that exceed EPA's stream TP criteria (to calculate the percent that attain the criteria, subtract the percentage provided from 100%) in Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter report. Original comment letter contains additional information about streams and rivers in Table 9. The percentage of DEP reference sites that exceed EPA's TN IPV criteria (to calculate the percent that attain the criteria, subtract the percentage provided from 100%) of the Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in Table 10. The percentage of all Florida Sites exceeding EPA's IPV and DEP's IWR Response Variables, by nutrient region and statewide. The parenthetical values are the number of site surpassing the criteria and the total number of sites assessed in Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3420Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1694-1.001.008

Author Name: Buss J. Organization: City of Tallahassee Comments for Section Ill. C Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Rivers and Streams The City objects to EPA's approach used to establish the proposed numeric criteria for streams, because some of the reference healthy streams used to develop the proposed criteria would exceed the criteria. This is unreasonable and would render the criteria unattainable. Section III.C(2) states, "There is a substantial and compelling scientific basis for the conclusion that excess TN and TP will have adverse effects; however, it is often unclear where precisely the impacts will occur." Therefore, to propose criteria that claim to "provide an appropriate threshold for providing protection of aquatic life and designated uses" using an arbitrary threshold (e.g.75th percentile for the reference stream approach) is scientifically unfounded. For instance, using the EPA reference stream data for the Panhandle, this approach results in 21% of the "healthy" streams exceeding the proposed criterion for Total Phosphorus (TP), 0.043 mglL and 20% exceeding the proposed criterion for Total Nitrogen (TN), 0.824 mglL. Moreover, in counties such as Leon and Gadsden, the data show most (10 of 12 Gadsden), or all (1 of 1 Leon) of the healthy reference stream sites exceeding the proposed TP criterion (Attachment 1).



# Comment ID 1695-1.001.014

Author Name: Wiley N. Organization: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission We believe that EPA's use of the 75th percentile from their benchmark sites developed from a distribution of "least impacted streams" would result in an excessive number of healthy sites being incorrectly classified as impaired, resulting in unnecessary use of resources to restore streams not in need of restoration. 

# Comment ID 1700-1.001.005

Author Name: Mahan R. Organization: MB Management 67, Inc. 3. The EPA standards, as proposed, could designate many water bodies as "impaired" without any scientific, biological validation of impairment. 

# Comment ID 1714-1.001.002

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3421Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Reed N. Organization: I strongly support the conservative aspect ofthe nutrient criteria developed by the EPA. While the FDEP considered using the 90th percentile benchmark for setting numeric nutrient criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus, the EPA nutrient criteria set an upper percentile (the 75th ) to protect the biological health of streams. I support this approach because the reverse path of an ecosystem, from an impaired to a non-impaired condition, along a nutrient gradient, is unlikely to be linear or to be the exact reverse ofthe path along that gradient. Often, the dose-response relationship can be very different, and less favorable in the reverse direction. A protective threshold is required for restoring impaired waters. Furthermore, I support the protective approach EPA has taken for maintaining the water quality standards of downstream inland waters. This is particularly relevant for Lake Okeechobee. The establishment of protective nutrient criteria for the tributaries of lake is crucial. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.045

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Nutrient Issues The Scientific Peer Review of USEPA procedures (SAB 2010) noted that other response parameters such as DO, organic matter, and sediment load may be more appropriate for streams than nutrients. Water quality and environmental characteristics such as pH, color, canopy cover, stream velocity, the aquatic plant abundance, etc. appear to be driving the biological response of rivers more than nutrient concentrations. If nutrients play a secondaryrole in determining the quality of biological communities in a river, stream or canal, then the attempt to develop causeeffect or stressor-response relationships will be problematic. Without considering these other parameters on a site specific basis, it is unlikely that any benefits to overall biological conditions can be achieved by simply changing nutrient concentrations 

# Comment ID 1725-1.001.004

Author Name: Nyhus S. Organization: Flaherty & Hood, P.A. on behalf of Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board II. EPA's Proposed Standards Fail to Demonstrate a Causal Link Between the Pollutant and the Impairment As alluded to earlier, EPA ignored its own regulations, guidance, and the SAB recommendations by proposing standards that are not based on cause and effect data. Nowhere is this omission more glaring then the standards proposed for streams and canals. For these waters, EPA relies on a reference stream approach to justify nutrients standards that have absolutely no documented causal relationship to the impairments claimed. In fact, EPA's proposal admits the canal and stream protection standards are not based on a "cause and effect" demonstration despite a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3422Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams concerted attempt to find such a relationship (Rule Preamble at 75). Instead, the criteria were derived using the 75th percentile nutrient concentration occurring in selected "pristine" waters. Without getting into much detail, this approach instantly and improperly classifies 25% of pristine streams as nutrient impaired. Furthermore, this approach ignores any and all of the many confounding factors which EPA fully concedes could be causing impairment in other waters (Rule Preamble 73-82). This approach fails to identify numeric criteria that are necessary to protect uses as required by federal law. 

# Comment ID 1748-1.001.003

Author Name: Choi C. Organization: Progress Energy on behalf of the Florida Power Corporation doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc.

• EPA, in the absence of an identified causal relationship between nutrient concentration and impairment, proposes to arbitrarily set standards at the 75th percentile of the Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen data for streams, resulting in 25 percent of the healthy streams being deemed -impaired: This approach will certainly result in arbitrary and unnecessary regulatory actions. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.035

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 15. The reference approach use of the 75 percentile allows for a significant number of potentially healthy streams to be identified as impaired. EPA should either use a higher value or provide for demonstration of biological impairment within the stream segment. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.119

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(2) Methodology for Deriving EPA's Proposed Criteria for Streams Statement: The value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site-by site, segment-by-segment basis (i.e., as in the course of interpreting a narrative WQS for WQBELs and TMDL estimations) is no longer necessary. Rather, regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams allows an expedited and expanded level of aquatic protection across watersheds and greatly strengthens local and regional capacity to support and maintain State designated uses

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3423Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams throughout aquatic ecosystems Comment: EPA offers the SSAC process as a mechanism for alleviating the situations where the regional criteria are either over or under protective. The SSAC process in Florida has historically been a real problem and subject to extensive challenge. Based on FDEP analysis of the proposed EPA IPV rules, approximately 52.5 percent of all statewide data stations are not in attainment (FDEP, 2010). This likely represents a significant amount of Type I errors (i.e. false positives) while many blackwater or wetland dominated streams will simply not be in attainment due to naturally high levels of nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.123

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(2)(c) Methodology for Calculating Instream Protection Values: The Nutrient Watershed Region Distribution Approach Statement: EPA solicits comment on its analysis of what constitutes a protective threshold. Comment: EPA analyzed the stressor-response relationship but "did not find sufficient scientific support for their use in the derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida streams." EPA was not able to "demonstrate a sufficiently strong correlation between the biological response indicators (e.g., chlorophyll a, periphyton biomass, or SCI) and TN or TP concentrations." As a result, the EPAs proposed reference approach utilizes SCI and IWR listing. An SCI greater than or equal to 40 is deemed ‘healthy'; while EPA further screened these sites by cross-referencing them with Florida's CWA section 303(d) list for Florida and excluded sites with identified nutrient impairments or dissolved oxygen impairments associated with elevated nutrients. This may actually take out healthy systems with naturally low DO levels (there is significant question as to if all FDEP listings represent anthropogenically impacted DO conditions), this will improperly skew the results. Statistical analysis to get the 75th percentile as the target.The goal of this assessment is to delineate the boundary between meeting/not meeting designated use. If only IWRcompliant stations are used, then shouldn't all SCIs associated with these WBIDs be used? For example the Bone Valley NWR has 55 stations not listed on the IWR however only 22 of these have SCI values greater than 40. This approach differs significantly from the Lakes approach as it doesn't use data to define the boundary between meeting and not meeting designated use but rather tries to set the value at some level below that boundary. The EPA states calculated distributional statistics for annual average TN and TP concentrations but geo-means are used in the duration

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3424Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams and frequency. 

# Comment ID 1764-1.001.014

Author Name: Mowry G. Organization: Marion County Stormwater Section In addition, it isn't clear why EPA believes that the 75th percentile represents a "reasonable upper bound of where there is greatest confidence that biologically healthy sites will be represented". Based on FDEP and the Nutrient TAC, the 75th percentile would result in 25% of the benchmark sites being identified as impaired (a type I error). These are sites that FDEP has confirmed meet aquatic life use. The County is recommending that the 90% percentile of the benchmark distribution in the Peninsula nutrient region is appropriate and will minimize type II errors as well (classification of an impaired site as acceptable). 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.044

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 2. Fishable and Swimmable vs. Pristine Waters The Econlockhatchee River and Little Econlockhatchee in Seminole County are two examples of rivers that are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), have been used as FDEP reference sites, and are not classified as impaired for nutrients under current FDEP criteria. They have had additional levels of regulatory protection for decades and are recreational treasures that exemplify "fishable and swimmable" standards that maintain healthy and diverse ecosystems. Neither one of these waterbodies would meet the new EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria, based on a review of the past two years' nitrogen and phosphorus data. While they may exhibit some minimal anthropogenic impacts, their biological assessments (SCI's and BioRecon's) historically (and currently) score at or near reference site conditions at every monitoring event. If these near pristine sites are considered impaired, then every other waterbody within Seminole County will also be impaired. 

# Comment ID 1774.001.014

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida Comments on EPA's Selection of the 75th Percentile of a Dataset We concur with FDEPs observation that wetland dominated systems naturally produce higher concentrations of nutrients, which should not be mitigated. The higher nitrogen concentration from a wetland dominated system is due to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3425Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams contributions of organic nitrogen that is not biologically available, which makes it non-threatening to the health of aquatic organisms. Furthermore, there is evidence that wetlands systems provide an important sink for inorganic nitrogen and thus reduces the concentration in surface waters. Given the significant percentage of wetlands land use here at Deseret Ranches there is a high potential for naturally occurring nutrients in our surface waters. A high percentage of organic nitrogen in Deseret surface water bodies is indicated by the water quality data collected that typically shows low Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), high Dissolved Organic Carbon and low ammonia and nitrate concentrations when significant concentrations of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TKN) are present. Selecting at least the 90th percentile of the reference site distribution rather than the 75th percentile as proposed by EPA is more appropriate in order to avoid implicating wetland dominated systems as producing undesirable nutrient concentrations in streams. Furthermore, we reiterate FDEPs assertion that even if the 90th percentile is selected, there is still no conclusive evidence that streams with nutrient levels above the 90th percentile will be negatively impacted by those concentrations. For this reason we support the proposition that conducting additional evaluations including biological validation methods may be necessary to establish whether nutrients are a reasonable cause of designated use impairment. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.087

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(2) Methodology for Deriving EPA's Proposed Criteria for Streams Statement: The value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site-by site, segment-by-segment basis (i.e., as in the course of interpreting a narrative WQS for WQBELs and TMDL estimations) is no longer necessary. Rather, regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams allows an expedited and expanded level of aquatic protection across watersheds and greatly strengthens local and regional capacity to support and maintain State designated uses throughout aquatic ecosystems Comment: EPA offers the SSAC process as a mechanism for alleviating the situations where the regional criteria are either over or under protective. The SSAC process in Florida has historically been a real problem and subject to extensive challenge. Based on FDEP analysis of the proposed EPA IPV rules, approximately 52.5 percent of all statewide data stations are not in attainment (FDEP, 2010). This likely represents a significant amount of Type I errors (i.e. false positives) while many blackwater or wetland dominated streams will simply not be in attainment due to naturally high levels of nutrients.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3426Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1777-2.001.091

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(2)(c) Methodology for Calculating Instream Protection Values: The Nutrient Watershed Region Distribution Approach Statement: EPA solicits comment on its analysis of what constitutes a protective threshold. Comment: EPA analyzed the stressor-response relationship but "did not find sufficient scientific support for their use in the derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida streams." EPA was not able to "demonstrate a sufficiently strong correlation between the biological response indicators (e.g., chlorophyll a, periphyton biomass, or SCI) and TN or TP concentrations." As a result, the EPAs proposed reference approach utilizes SCI and IWR listing. An SCI greater than or equal to 40 is deemed ‘healthy'; while EPA further screened these sites by cross-referencing them with Florida's CWA section 303(d) list for Florida and excluded sites with identified nutrient impairments or dissolved oxygen impairments associated with elevated nutrients. This may actually take out healthy systems with naturally low DO levels (there is significant question as to if all FDEP listings represent anthropogenically impacted DO conditions), this will improperly skew the results. Statistical analysis to get the 75th percentile as the target. The goal of this assessment is to delineate the boundary between meeting/not meeting designated use. If only IWR- compliant stations are used, then shouldn't all SCIs associated with these WBIDs be used? For example the Bone Valley NWR has 55 stations not listed on the IWR however only 22 of these have SCI values greater than 40. This approach differs significantly from the Lakes approach as it doesn't use data to define the boundary between meeting and not meeting designated use but rather tries to set the value at some level below that boundary. The EPA states calculated distributional statistics for annual average TN and TP concentrations but geo-means are used in the duration and frequency.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3427Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.159

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 15. The reference approach use of the 75 percentile allows for a significant number of potentially healthy streams to be identified as impaired. EPA should either use a higher value or provide for demonstration of biological impairment within the stream segment. 

# Comment ID 1780-1.001.008

Author Name: Piper R. Organization: Florida Power and Light Company The seriousness of these shortcomings is exacerbated by EPA's use of the 75th percentile as a basis for setting instream criteria. In sum, will be an unacceptably high percentage of false positive outcomes under the proposed criteria. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.006

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 II. EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria confirm that EPA cannot develop scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria in the timeframes provided by the Consent Decree The preamble to the proposed rule explains that EPA used a "statistical distribution methodology" to derive total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) standards for Florida's streams. In essence, EPA divided the state into geographical regions; analyzed nutrient data from a set of biologically healthy streams in each region; and then set the numeric nutrient criteria at the 75th percentile of the TP and TN data for these streams. This approach -- which on the one hand identifies sets of streams as healthy and on the other hand declares 25% of the same streams to be impaired -- confirms that EPA significantly underestimated the challenge of establishing scientifically valid numeric nutrient criteria for Florida streams. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.016

Author Name: Childs D. Organization: Hopping Green & Sams, P.A., on behalf of Florida Rural Water Association, Florida Water Environment

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3428Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Association Utility Council, and Florida Section of the American Water Works Association Utility Council Regardless of which set of standards are adopted -- that developed by EPA or FDEP - the chance of declaring a site out of compliance when it is truly in compliance is a critical attribute of any test criteria. The probability of incorrectly declaring a site out of compliance is referred to as the "false positive rate" for the compliance criteria. False positive rates are routinely calculated and published for medical screening tests, where a "false positive" occurs when the test incorrectly indicates an individual has a disease and treatment is therefore unnecessarily applied. The goal is to develop tests that have low false positive rates, particularly when the treatment is invasive and expensive. Similarly, the false positive rates for water quality compliance criteria are important in evaluating the likelihood of undertaking extensive, expensive, but ultimately unnecessary, remedial actions.[26] EPA apparently attempts to overcome its inadequate data problem by using the 75th percentile to derive its instream criteria for Florida's streams. This method generates unacceptable false positive levels exceeding 25%, even assuming the criteria are calculated reliably, which, as explained above, they are not. The actual false positive rates may be much higher due to the insufficient data, and improper data aggregation, employed by the EPA. This means that sites that are fully compliant will have at least a 25% chance of being declared out of compliance. Although FDEP's use of the 90th percentile (in its draft rule promulgated in response to the Necessity Determination) would in theory result in more reasonable false positive rates, the criteria still must be based on sufficient data to be reliable. In addition, the criteria must be applied at the same level at which it is calculated, which for the FDEP data is to water body annual means, and not site level annual means, as EPA appears to be proposing.[27] [26] Id. [27] Id. 

# Comment ID 1785-1.001.011

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida B. The Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria Should be Based on Sound Science and Data The Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria must be based on sound science and take into consideration the extensive database of site specific water quality data available through the FDEP and local governments such as Lee County. Lee County believes that the EPA's methodology of using the 75th percentile of nutrient concentrations will result in a large number of healthy water bodies being incorrectly classified as impaired. The numeric nutrient limits should be set to provide protection to our valuable water resources, but at limits that are both based upon best available site specific data and scientifically defensible.[1] [1]The proposed rule states that the Numeric Nutrient Criteria will apply to "waters of the United States," the definition of which can be found in the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 230.3(s). Lee County has been informed that the database of water quality data that was used during development of the criteria includes samples collected from isolated waters that do not meet the definition of "waters of the United States." Statistically, it is inappropriate for EPA to apply criteria to "waters of the United States" based on samples that were taken from water bodies not meeting the definition.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3429Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1786-1.001.022

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Florida also wanted the criteria set at a higher percentile (90th) of the statistical distribution rather than the 75th percentile used by EPA. As an alternative, Florida was considering requiring biological validation or verification before declaring impairment - which would have provided some reassurance that the statistically derived criteria were not unnecessarily restrictive. Other states have proposed similar approaches, numeric TN and TP values but with required biological verification, but EPA has so far not expressed support for such approaches. EPA's selected reference waters and reliance on the 75th percentile will, by FDEP's estimates, result in 35 percent of Florida's most pristine surface waters failing EPA's proposed in-stream criteria. Peer review comments on EPA's Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs included disagreement about using the reference condition approach including using percentile values as arbitrary and lacking scientific rationale for criteria development. EPA's response at the time was that science cannot address all aspects of environmental management decision making. While NACWA recognizes that the science in some areas of environmental protection are not sufficiently advanced to provide adequate information on how or to what level pollutants should be controlled to protect designated uses, this is not the case with nutrients. There is sufficient science available to develop cause and effect relationships related to nutrients - the Chesapeake Bay nutrient TMDL is a good example. Although the effort may be complex and difficult it is possible to model relationships rather than defaulting to over-simplified criteria like those proposed by EPA. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.026

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Regardless of which set of standards are adopted - EPA or FDEP - the chance of declaring a site out of compliance when it is truly in compliance is a critical attribute of any test criteria. The false positive rates for water quality compliance criteria are important in evaluating the likelihood of undertaking extensive, expensive, but ultimately unnecessary, remedial actions. The EPA instream criteria are based upon the 75th percentile, which generates unacceptable false positive levels exceeding 25%, even assuming the criteria are calculated reliably, which, as explained above, they are not. The actual false positive rates may be much higher due to the insufficient data, and improper data aggregation, employed by the EPA. This means that sites that are fully compliant will have at least a 25% chance of being declared out of compliance. Although the FDEP use of the 90th percentile will in theory result in more reasonable false positive rates, the criteria still must be based on sufficient data to be reliable. 

# Comment ID 1797-1.001.033

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3430Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau Rather than adequately evaluate the cause-and-effect relationship between nutrients and an adverse response, the EPA chose to use percentile distributions of reference/benchmark water bodies as a basis for proposed TN and TP criteria.[64] Reference or benchmark streams are selected as representative of waters that are not significantly impacted by anthropogenic sources of pollution. The EPA chose to base criteria at the 75th percentile of the distribution of reference/benchmark streams. Application of a single criterion at the 75th percentile means that 25% of benchmark streams are declared to be impaired. Additionally, the EPA has failed to recognize or communicate that if additional criteria are derived using the proposed approach, the number of reference water bodies declared that will be impaired will increase. If the EPA were to continue the practice of setting criteria using a percentile of stream conditions, in time, nearly all streams would be declared as impaired for some parameter.[65]

[64] 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, 58. (To view the technical report in its entirety, refer to comments submitted by Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc.). [65] Id. 

# Comment ID 1800-1.001.008

Author Name: Gong S. Organization: CH2M HILL It is troubling that both EPA and FDEP have concluded that detailed analyses of the scientific database being used as the basis for NNC development do not demonstrate a clear dose-response relationship for either N or P in relation to the perceived biological integrity of the rivers, streams, and canals evaluated (the inland flowing waters category). The fall back approach of statistically-based definition of "good" conditions, and the arbitrary use of a selected percentile value as the proposed criterion for the different geographic regions within the state has received extensive critique from others so we will forgo repeating those criticisms in detail. However, we felt it appropriate to note that we agree with those that have suggested that use of the 75th percentile values is excessively conservative. We also concur that EPA's exclusion of some of the available data for reasons outlined by the Technical Advisory Committee working with FDEP on the state's NNC development efforts is also troubling. It is our understanding that this exclusion may have resulted in the skewing of the statistical metrics lower than would be representative of the full data sets, so the subsequent use of a 75th percentile value would be even further subject to credibility concerns. We would ask that these analytical approaches be revisited and perhaps refined prior to the final promulgation of N and P values in October 2010. While the lack of demonstrated dose-response relationships remains troubling, at the very least the concerns regarding data inclusion/exclusion and statistical justifications should be addressed as EPA's process moves toward this fall's milestone.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3431Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.035

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 15. The reference approach use of the 75 percentile allows for a significant number of potentially healthy streams to be identified as impaired. EPA should either use a higher value or provide for demonstration of biological impairment within the stream segment. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.104

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(2) Methodology for Deriving EPA’s Proposed Criteria for Streams Statement: The value of regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams is that the substantial expenditure of time and scarce public resources to document and interpret inevitable and expected stream variability on a site-by site, segment-by-segment basis (i.e., as in the course of interpreting a narrative WQS for WQBELs and TMDL estimations) is no longer necessary. Rather, regional numeric nutrient criteria for streams allows an expedited and expanded level of aquatic protection across watersheds and greatly strengthens local and regional capacity to support and maintain State designated uses throughout aquatic ecosystems Comment: EPA offers the SSAC process as a mechanism for alleviating the situations where the regional criteria are either over or under protective. The SSAC process in Florida has historically been a real problem and subject to extensive challenge. Based on FDEP analysis of the proposed EPA IPV rules, approximately 52.5 percent of all statewide data stations are not in attainment (FDEP, 2010). This likely represents a significant amount of Type I errors (i.e. false positives) while many blackwater or wetland dominated streams will simply not be in attainment due to naturally high levels of nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.108

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(2)(c) Methodology for Calculating Instream Protection Values: The Nutrient Watershed Region Distribution Approach Statement:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3432Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams EPA solicits comment on its analysis of what constitutes a protective threshold. Comment: EPA analyzed the stressor-response relationship but “did not find sufficient scientific support for their use in the derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida streams.” EPA was not able to “demonstrate a sufficiently strong correlation between the biological response indicators (e.g., chlorophyll a, periphyton biomass, or SCI) and TN or TP concentrations.” As a result, the EPAs proposed reference approach utilizes SCI and IWR listing. An SCI greater than or equal to 40 is deemed ‘healthy’; while EPA further screened these sites by cross-referencing them with Florida’s CWA section 303(d) list for Florida and excluded sites with identified nutrient impairments or dissolved oxygen impairments associated with elevated nutrients. This may actually take out healthy systems with naturally low DO levels (there is significant question as to if all FDEP listings represent anthropogenically impacted DO conditions), this will improperly skew the results. Statistical analysis to get the 75th percentile as the target. The goal of this assessment is to delineate the boundary between meeting/not meeting designated use. If only IWR-compliant stations are used, then shouldn’t all SCIs associated with these WBIDs be used? For example the Bone Valley NWR has 55 stations not listed on the IWR however only 22 of these have SCI values greater than 40. This approach differs significantly from the Lakes approach as it doesn’t use data to define the boundary between meeting and not meeting designated use but rather tries to set the value at some level below that boundary. The EPA states calculated distributional statistics for annual average TN and TP concentrations but geo-means are used in the duration and frequency. 

# Comment ID 1811-1.001.011

Author Name: Carpinone P. Organization: Tampa Electric Company EPA's selection of the 75th percentile of streams with a Stream Condition Index greater than 40 is itself arbitrary and immediately declares 25% of the most biologically healthy waters in Florida as impaired and needing restoration, creating an unnecessary demand on already scarce resources for restoration. Numeric nutrient criteria must address the existing condition of the water body and the best way to do this is to establish site-or water body-specific criteria that account for a dose-response relationship. 

# Comment ID 1813-1.001.009

Author Name: Britt M. Organization: Natural Resources Division, City of Winter Haven

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3433Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams For rivers and streams, EPA's approach ignors the natural variability of conditions. The Econlockhatchee River and Little Econlockhatchee in Seminole County are examples of rivers that were classified as Outstanding Florida Waters. Under EPA's proposed nutrient criteria, both of these water bodies would be impaired. It is estimated over 80% of DEP's pristine sites would exceed the downstream protection values and be deemed impaired. 

# Comment ID 1834-1.001.006

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

• By choosing a refcrence distribution approach, the EPA proposal assures that a large portion of reference waters will fail the criteria even though the designated use is maintained. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.009

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2. Unacceptably Large Number of Unimpaired Sites Falsely Listed as Impaired, Leading to a Highly Inefficient Use of Pollution Control Efforts. By selecting a reference distribution approach, the EPA proposed rule assures that a large portion of reference waters will fail the criteria while maintaining designated use. The chance of declaring a site out of compliance when it is truly in compliance (Type 1 error) is a critical attribute of any criteria assessment. The false positive rates associated with EPA's use of the 75th percentile are not reasonable. From a statistical perspective, the process of determining whether a particular station is in compliance is a "test of hypothesis." In scientific applications of statistical methods, "tests of hypotheses" are used to evaluate which of two competing hypotheses are supported by the data. As it applies to EPA's proposed water quality tests at a particular station, the two hypotheses are "Station is compliant" vs. "Station is not compliant." Statisticians recognize that when data are utilized to test hypotheses, two types of error can occur: in this case, a Type I Error (false positive) occurs if the station is declared not compliant, when in fact it is compliant. A Type II Error (false negative) occurs if the station is declared compliant, when in fact it is not compliant. A generally accepted scientific principle among statisticians and scientists applying statistical methods is that the test should be conducted in such a manner that ensures the Type I Error rate will be no greater than 10%, and tests of hypotheses are predominantly conducted using no more than a 5% false positive rate. When the EPA establishes the 75% percentile as the "not to exceed" level, it is accepting Type I Error rates of 25% (or greater), which is much higher than generally accepted scientific levels. The ultimate goal in statistical hypothesis testing is to minimize the rates of both Type I and Type II Errors. This goal is

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3434Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams accomplished by first establishing the Type I Error rate at a scientifically acceptable level (typically at 5%) and then selecting a sample size sufficient to ensure a similarly Type II Error rate. The EPA's use of the 75th percentile in conjunction with inadequate data will result in unacceptable high levels of both the "false positive" and "false negative" rates. The appropriate approach is first to collect sufficient data upon which to base a compliance test, and then to determine the criteria for the test based on sound scientific principles. The current proposal is deficient in both. [v] If EPA relies on a percentile approach using unimpaired waterbodies then they should use the full range of values for these waterbodies to establish criteria. EPA states that, "Although the 95th and 99th percentiles were considered, DEP determined that there was insufficient certainty in the inclusiveness of the 95th and 99th percentiles given the sparseness of data at the extreme end of the distribution." This description seems especially naïve since, by the very definition of the 95th and 99th percentiles, there should be very little data at these extreme ends of the distribution. This statement does not provide a scientifically valid rationale for rejection the full range of variability in unimpaired waterbodies and should be considered as an arbitrary decision. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.010

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services An extensive evaluation of the false positive rate for streams and canals in South Florida was conducted. The very large Type I errors results in the conclusion that both he instream and canal criteria are arbitrary and capricious. v, vi. The proposed waterbody criteria contain both a magnitude and an allowable frequency of exceedence. The magnitude component is based upon reference condition approach and is designed to set the criterion value such that 75% of reference sites are in compliance with the criterion (EPA Guidance Manuals). [vii, viii] 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.012

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Streams False positive rates are also unacceptably high for the proposed in-stream criteria. High false positive rates for compliance with water quality criteria are important in evaluating the likelihood of undertaking extensive, expensive, and ultimately unnecessary remedial actions. The EPA instream criteria are based upon the 75th percentile of an inadequate database. Because the data are insufficient to generate reliable criteria, precise quantification of the true false positive rates is impossible. Nonetheless, an approximation can be calculated to illustrate the fact that use of the 75th percentile leads to unacceptably high false positive rates.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3435Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Using EPA's estimated means and standard deviations, and their proposed criteria based on the 75th percentile, false positive rates (based upon 10,000 simulations, the proposed assessment methods, and a seven year long-term average) range from 20% to 36% across the four non-canal regions and two water quality parameters. The implications of a ~33% false positive rate is that one in three stations that are actually in compliance will be falsely declared out of compliance. This unacceptably high rate of error is further exacerbated when many stations are tested. For example, if five stations that are in compliance are tested, the probability that at least one will be declared out of compliance jumps to 86%, and if ten stations that are in compliance are tested, the chance that at least one will be falsely declared out of compliance is almost certain, at 96%. As unacceptable as these rates are for the instream protective value, the fact is they may be even high, since all these calculations are based on the assumption that the criteria were calculated properly using sufficient data, which is a demonstrably incorrect assumption. The false positive rates for the FDEP proposed in-stream criteria are significantly lower for most regions, since for all but one region, the criteria are based on the 90th percentile. The false positive rates are generally less than 5%, with the Bone Valley TP rate higher at 22% due to the FEDP's use of the 75th percentile for the criterion in that region. (The rates estimated based upon 10,000 simulations, the proposed assessment methods, and a seven year long-term average.) A false positive rate of 5% or less is a significant improvement over those using the EPA's criteria. This rate is applicable only if tested against water body annual means and assuming the FDEP have accurately estimated the water-body level statistical distribution of the nutrient parameter. The false positive rates increase if the limits are applies to the station annual means. [v] These findings show that the proposed rule is inconsistent with the EPA (2000) guidance cited as the basis for the criteria. The guidance recommends that the criterion value be defined such that 75% of reference sites are in compliance with the criterion, while the proposed criteria result in a much lower percentage (and therefore roughly 50% more "false positives" than recommended). [viii] FDEP performed an analysis for streams, and concluded that 35% of FDEP reference sites would be judges as impaired for total nitrogen when the once in three-year frequency component is considered. [ix] 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.013

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services In addition, the criteria must be applied at the same level at which they were calculated. [ix] The FDEP in-stream and EPA canal data is aggregated to water body annual means, and not site level annual means, as proposed by EPA. EPA is proposing criteria that are calculated from the 75th percentile at the WBID level, but in actuality will be applying the duration and frequency tests against individual annual site geometric means. This is not sound statistical practice, since the application of the test is not at the same level as the development of the test. If EPA wants to use a 75th percentile of annual water body mean, then that value should be compared to future annual water body means. If one assumes a 25% false positive rate for a test of a given station, and there are 3 stations within a water body, then the chance of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3436Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams declaring a water body out of compliance by having a least one stating out of compliance is 58%. [vi] Through the proposed application of the reference condition distribution approach, the EPA proposal assures that a large portion of reference waters will fail the criteria while maintaining designated use. Since not all water bodies in Florida have been evaluated (53% of river miles as of 2008), additional areas with healthy balanced populations are likely to fail the criteria while maintaining their designated use. Any approach that mistakenly assumes that one third ofall reference sites are impaired is inherently arbitrary and will be prone to even larger errors when applied to nonreference sites, which in turn will lead to wasted efforts to remediate sites that are not impaired. EPA needs to either modify the proposed criterion values or modify the application of the frequency component to provide criteria that are consistent with the guidance it cites.


# Comment ID 1834-4.001.020

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 7. Confirmation of Actual Impairment of a Designated Use should be Required before a Site is Considered Impaired. EPA's proposed approach for developing nutrient criteria for Florida canals and streams is by their admission only an inference model that cannot directly estimate appropriately protective nutrient concentrations. The significance of this limitation is highlighted by the above review that indicated that more than one third of all reference sites would currently be considered impaired. Should the reference condition approach be maintained, it should be modified to require confirmation of an actual impairment of a designated use (through an appropriate response variable(s) for the waterbody in question) before a site is considered impaired, rather than allowing a site to be defined as impaired based solely on nutrient concentrations. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.040

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services EPA inappropriately used FDEP's reference site data for streams, determining that a large percentage of high quality systems were impaired. FDEP invested substantial effort to define reference sites that supported high quality aquatic habitat and a high diversity of species across a wide range of natural variability within Florida Streams. EPA arbitrarily chose to determine that 25% of these verified sites were impaired. The use of the more rigorous approach used by FDEP for reference site selection would allow criteria to be based upon the full range of reference site values. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.055

Author Name: Moore D.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3437Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District USEPA's "reference condition approach" (page 4196, proposed rule) relies on identification of reference waters that exhibit minimal impacts from anthropogenic disturbance and are known to support designated uses. This method may not account for land use changes where systems are still able to maintain healthy ecosystems. Use of the reference condition approach as a threshold is overprotective for determining biologically healthy sites, and will result in a large percentage of reference streams failing the proposed standard (page 4195, proposed rule). 

# Comment ID 1836.001.057

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District However, if USEPA decides to use the proposed reference condition approach instead of the more scientifically robust alternative benchmark approach proposed by FDEP, then SWFWMD recommends that the 90th percentile of reference sites should be used for determining impairment. 

# Comment ID 1869-1.001.008

Author Name: Fumero J. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley on behalf of Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc.

• The use of "reference streams" to set numeric nutrient criteria will result in a significant number of high quality water bodies being classified as "impaired". Some of these water bodies are found in conservation lands and state parks and are not necessarily in need of restoration. 

# Comment ID 1900.001.005

Author Name: Gulbinsky E. Organization: Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey II. EPA's Proposed Standards Fail to Demonstrate a Causal Link Between the Pollutant and the Impairment As alluded to earlier, EPA ignored its own regulations, guidance, and the SAB recommendations by proposing standards that are not based on cause and effect data. Nowhere is this omission more glaring then the standards proposed for streams and canals. For these waterbodies, EPA relies on a reference stream approach to justify nutrients standards that have absolutely no documented causal relationship to the impairments claimed. In fact, EPA's proposal admits the canal and stream protection standards are not based on a "cause and effect" demonstration despite a concerted attempt to find such a relationship (Rule Preamble at 75). Instead, the criteria were derived using the 75th percentile nutrient concentration occurring in selected `pristine' waters. Without getting into much detail, this approach

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3438Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams instantly and improperly classifies 25% of pristine streams as nutrient impaired. Furthermore, this approach ignores any and all of the many confounding factors which EPA fully concedes could be causing impairment in other waters (Rule Preamble 73-82). This approach fails to identify numeric criteria that are necessary to protect uses as required by federal law. 

# Comment ID 1900.001.006

Author Name: Gulbinsky E. Organization: Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey III. EPA's Proposed Standards Will Regulate Unimpaired Waters Because They Are Not Based on an Identified Impairment Threshold Related to the Agency's failure to demonstrate a causal relationship, the proposal, as it applies to streams, rivers, and canals, fails to identify the threshold level of a response variable to determine whether a particular waterbody is impaired. The SAB recently admonished the Agency for releasing guidance that did not stress this critical component of standards derivation. Although the proposal claims that the standards are used to address excessive plant growth, EPA merely looked at nutrient levels in "unimpacted" or "pristine" rivers and streams and presumed that the level of nutrients occurring in those waters is necessary to assure protection in all other streams in that ecoregion (a criteria violation occurs if TN or TP concentrations are exceeded, regardless of the degree of plant growth occurring). However, nutrients are just one of many potential causative agents; they are not the ecological response variable indicating an impairment. Thus, the obvious fallacy in the approach is that it assumes elevated nutrient levels in streams are responsible for the impairment. This assumption will be responsible for forcing unnecessary regulation on unimpaired waters (including 25% of the streams and rivers EPA deems to be pristine) merely because the nutrient concentrations are elevated without the presence of credible evidence of use impairment. By failing to establish impairment thresholds, EPA's proposed criteria cannot be shown to be "necessary to protect [designated] uses," as required by 40 CFR 131 .2. This approach does not serve any environmental purpose and will waste energy and resources needlessly. 

# Comment ID 1900.001.011

Author Name: Gulbinsky E. Organization: Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey Similarly, EPA's approach to criteria derivation identifies pristine reference streams as "impaired" regardless of (1) whether any real impairment exists, and (2) whether the impairment is due to natural conditions. Moreover, in most cases the natural geologic conditions make it such that the proposed TP targets are impossible to attain even if they were correctly developed. Forcing communities to spend because of natural conditions is both unreasonable and improper under the CWA. 

# Comment ID 1920-1.001.016

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3439Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 42. In my opinion, use of the 90th percentile as a basis for proposing numeric nutrient criteria is not warranted based on the condition of the reference reaches included in FDEP's and the Conservationists' dataset.
43. First, the Manual recommends selection of the 75% percentile of water quality data from "minimally disturbed streams." With the exception of a few reaches, the watersheds of the vast majority of the reaches used are degraded to some extent as is thoroughly documented in the attached study. They are certainly not "pristine" as that word is commonly understood.[20]
44. For example, in Columbia County, the location of a number of reference reaches sit in the Statenville Phosphate Region where 35% of the land in the county is in pine plantations, 18% is in farms, and 1,280 tons of N fertilizer and 369 tons of P2O5 fertilizer are applied each year. (Exhibit F: IFAS Report on Agriculture in Suwannee River Basin). While this is much less than other counties in the Suwannee River watershed and other locations around the state, this is not an undisturbed watershed and reference reaches in these types of watersheds cannot be considered "pristine" to justify the use of a 90th percentile. Original comment letter contains additional information in Exhibit F, the IFAS Report on Agriculture in Suwannee River Basin. See original comment letter. [20] "Pristine" is defined as "characteristic of the earliest condition or time." Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary at 936 (1988 ed.) 

# Comment ID 1920-1.001.021

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 49. Based on my review of the study, it is my opinion that the remaining sites qualify under EPA guidance for use as reference reaches because they are "least-disturbed" streams even though they are not "pristine streams," and use of the 75th percentile obtained through the frequency distribution approach is reasonable under the circumstances. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.040

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Following EPA guidance, DEP first attempted to establish its numeric nutrient criteria applying a dose-response approach. If successful, the Department should find a strong relationship between ambient nutrient concentrations and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3440Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams a biological response variable such as the stream condition index (SCI) or periphyton biomass measured by a Rapid Periphyton Survey (RPS). While there was some correlation between nutrient concentrations and a number of biological response variables, the relationships were not sufficiently strong to allow the Department to derive numeric criteria from its analyses. The dose-response approach having failed, and there not being sufficient time to conduct further analyses, DEP has implemented a reference stream approach as its "Plan B." The reference stream approach is based upon EPA guidance that recommends deriving numeric criteria from the 75th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 25th percentile of data from all streams for which there is data in EPA's STORET database or comparable database (DEP has its own version of STORET). The reference streams used by DEP have been intensely scrutinized leading the Department's staff to propose using the 90th percentile of its data from its reference waters in lieu of the 75th percentile suggested in EPA guidance. The reference stream approach is totally arbitrary and by no means reflects the concentration of nitrogen or phosphorus that can be maintained in a stream and remain protective of the water body's designated use. Using the 90th percentile as an example, ten percent of the reference streams-the waters deemed so minimally impacted that they should be the gold standard for setting criteria-would exceed the numeric nutrient criteria and be deemed impaired. Those waters would be listed as impaired and a TMDL would have to be derived to return the reference water to meeting a nitrogen or phosphorus concentration that it would not normally or naturally meet. This reference stream approach could force nutrient reductions that may actually harm stream biology by depriving flora and fauna of needed nutrients. Applying EPA's preferred 75 percentile approach, 25% of all reference waters would fail to meet the derived numeric criteria, would be listed as impaired and the subject of a TMDL. Any methodology that automatically declares that 10 to 25% of the reference streams fail to meet the criteria derived from those same reference streams is arbitrary and capricious on its face. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.076

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Another major flaw in the EPA's development of nutrient criteria for streams is its use of an arbitrary value (the 75th percentile of TN and TP concentrations) to define the criteria for streams meeting the minimum acceptable SCI value of 40. This percentile was based on a statistical analysis to minimize type 1 and type 2 statistical errors, but it does not have any other technical basis. No statistical analysis is presented to show that there is a correlation between Nand P concentrations and the SCI, which is critically important if the SCI is to serve as the basis for the criteria. The frequency distribution plots in Figures 2.14-2.16 are not adequate to show that a quantitative relationship exists between nutrient concentrations and the SCI. 

# Comment ID 2372-1.001.011

Author Name: Farber D.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3441Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Patton Boggs LLP on behalf of James Hardie Building Products, Inc. IV. EPA's Instream Protection Value for Bone Valley is Arbitrarily Low. If the standards in EPA's Proposed Rule are adopted as proposed, 40% of the 22 reference streams in the Bone Valley (the geographic region that includes Plant City) would be considered "impaired" for either the TN or TP instream protection value, even these streams are not currently impaired as determined by Florida's Stream Condition Index (SCI). The benefits of using Florida's SCI, rather than an arbitrary numeric limit applied regionwide, is that the SCI relies heavily on biological data and biological indicators to assess ecosystem health. In addition to setting higher instream protection value criteria for Bone Valley Streams, EPA should include a biological validation procedure in its rule, so that only streams with unhealthy biological communities and/or other impairments are considered impaired. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0588.001.009, 0589.001.012, 0619.001.002, 0631.001.004, 0723.001.004, 0734.001.006, 0771.001.004, 0795.001.003, 0814.001.006, 0915-1.001.004, 0915-1.001.006, 0974.001.005, 1105.001.003, 1128.001.009, 1217-2.001.049, 1217­ 2.001.051, 1217-2.001.063, 1303-1.001.004, 1352-1.001.114, 1352-1.001.175, 1352-1.001.181, 1353-1.001.014, 1355-2.001.084, 1355-2.001.086, 1364-1.001.007, 1368-1.001.002, 1368-1.001.017, 1414-1.001.004, 1414-1.001.007, 1416-1.001.020, 1431­ 1.001.021, 1433-1.001.004, 1445-1.001.009, 1474-1.001.123, 1474-1.001.130, 1474-1.001.155, 1476-2.001.071, 1477-1.001.014, 1477-1.001.023, 1480-2.001.013, 1530.001.006, 1532-1.001.007, 1532-1.001.012, 1671-3.001.074, 1671-3.001.082, 1671­ 3.001.094, 1671-3.001.098, 1694-1.001.008, 1695-1.001.014, 1715-3.001.045, 1725-1.001.004, 1748-1.001.003, 1761-3.001.035, 1761-3.001.123, 1764-1.001.014, 1774.001.014, 1777-2.001.091, 1777-2.001.159, 1780-1.001.008, 1782-1.001.006, 1785­ 1.001.011, 1786-1.001.022, 1797-1.001.033, 1800-1.001.008, 1805-3.001.035, 1805-3.001.108, 1834-4.001.013, 1811-1.001.011, 1834-4.001.040, 1836.001.057, 1900.001.005, 1900.001.006, 2233-1.001.040, 2233-1.001.076 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the Stream Condition Index (SCI) reference site selection method was arbitrary and simplistic. EPA has considered this and other comments. EPA notes that the reference set of streams used to derive the final criteria in the rule are different than the set of streams used to derive the proposed criteria, except in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). Other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference set of streams, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream set because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. As to the SCI reference site selection method, simplicity in and of itself is not generally an argument against a reference site selection method. The development of the SCI, used as the principal screening tool for the “biologically healthy” reference population, was not a simple process. The SCI incorporates a multitude of information in it, including rules for selecting least disturbed reference sites that were used to develop, score, and identify nutrient thresholds. Moreover, EPA disagrees that the method of selecting reference sites based on an SCI screen was arbitrary. EPA detailed in the TSD the lengthy, involved, scientifically defensible, and transparent process used to generate the multimetric index; a process that is based on well established EPA guidance and scientific principles. The bioassessment and bioindicator literature underlying the SCI is both broad and comprehensive. Similarly, the selection of an SCI threshold of 40 was not arbitrary, but rather based on two rigorous statistical analyses detailed in the TSD. EPA considered a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3442Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams variety of potential SCI endpoints, as detailed in the TSD, and concluded that a value of 40 was most defensible. EPA wanted to develop a reference selection process that was both defensible and clear. The process EPA proposed depended on easily replicable bioassessment results that are clear to identify and easy to use in selecting sites. The SCI also clearly responds to stressors, including nutrient stressors, as detailed in the TSD and citations therein. Other comments opposed the use of the SCI alone for site selection, arguing that natural conditions can influence the SCI tool performance including physical-chemical parameters such as velocity, conductivity, pH, temp, and DO which can act as natural stressors. Natural variability does influence SCI scores, as reflected in the variability around minimally impacted reference sites SCI scores. EPA considered the influence of this natural variability explicitly in the selection of the SCI threshold and this consideration is described in great detail in the TSD appendices B-13 and B-14. There is also a great deal of information about human disturbance incorporated into the SCI score. For example, the development of the SCI included responsiveness to human disturbance gradients, including the Land Disturbance Index (LDI), in the selection, scoring, and threshold selection processes. So, the SCI scores inherently include considerations of human disturbance, and the selection of the threshold incorporates considerations of least-disturbed conditions. Lastly, the SCI was not used alone for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites. Other comments disagreed with the use of low dissolved oxygen as a basis to reject candidate reference sites because low oxygen may be a natural occurrence. EPA considered this and other comments. EPA retained the removal of sites listed by FDEP as impaired for dissolved oxygen for both the modified benchmark and SCI reference populations as detailed in the final rule and TSD. EPA rejected sites because of low dissolved oxygen where those sites had been included by FDEP on Florida’s list of impaired waters, pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA. FDEP is not required to include waterbodies on the section 303(d) list where it demonstrates that concentrations of dissolved oxygen were measured below the numeric criteria due solely to natural conditions. Without such a demonstration, EPA must rely on FDEP’s identification of impairment when considering whether to select candidate reference sites. Concerns related to FDEP’s section 303(d) list should be addressed through the 303(d) listing process, which is independent of the nutrient criteria development process. Similarly, any comments about the appropriateness of Florida’s dissolved oxygen criteria should be addressed in FDEP’s criterion development process and not the nutrient criteria process. Some comments objected to the rejection of WBIDs listed as impaired for mercury or coliforms. EPA did not exclude WBIDs that were listed as impaired for any constituent other than dissolved oxygen and nutrients. This is detailed in the draft and final rule and TSD. Lastly, with regards to reference site selection, some comments sought clarification on the SCI reference approach. EPA provided a lengthy and clear description of the straightforward process used for selecting the SCI Population reference sites, which included a detailed description of the development of the SCI itself, in section 2 of the proposed rule TSD. 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,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3443Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams
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. A number of comments disagreed with the sufficiency of data used by EPA. EPA considered these and other comments. The first assertion was that EPA used limited data. EPA considered all available data of defensible quality. For both the proposed and final rule for streams, this included screening and evaluating water chemistry data from more than 11,000 samples from over 6,000 sites statewide, and evaluating biological data of more than 2,000 samples from over 1,100 streams. A review of these data is included in the TSD and data files were also made available to the public. A second assertion was that data were collected during a fewclimatically abnormal years. It is unclear what is meant by climatically abnormal as Florida is typified by highly variable interannual climatic conditions (see figure below with annual precipitation data). Biological data were collected from 2004 to 2008, a period which, according to precipitation data from the Florida Climate Center, included years with annual average precipitationabove the 75th percentile of long-term average annual precipitation, years with annual averages below the 25th percentile of longterm average annual precipitation, and years with annual averages equal to the long-term average annual precipitation. Chemistry data were collected during an even longer period encompassing a similarly balanced number of variable climatic conditions. EPA concludes from this that the data used to derive numeric nutrient criteria incorporate the full range of hydrologic conditions representative of the variability typically observed in Florida including high, low and average conditions and that the range of conditions represented by the data actually reinforces the defensibility of the resultant criteria. There were comments that weighting or averaging was needed when using data from multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. In response to this and similar comments, EPA considered the autocorrelation issues involved in using site averages for sites located closely in space and explored the use of WBID averages. For the final rule, EPA has decided to use WBID averages instead of site averages, which reduces the effect of spatial autocorrelation. The reanalysis and justification are detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. The supplemental notice included analyses of WBID based spatial units. Lastly, EPA received comment that the data used were of varied detection limits and methodologies and included unqualified data. All the data used were verified by FDEPs approved Data Useability requirements as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA received several comments that disagreed with the criteria determination process using the reference condition approach. EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s Benchmark Reference Approach, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream approach because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. The first comment within this general topic was that use of the upper bound of the distribution for “healthy” streams compromises the criteria. EPA considered several options for percentiles and incorporated the concern reflected in this comment into its consideration of which percentiles to use in the final rule. For the final rule, other than the West Central Region, EPA is using the 90th percentile of the modified Benchmark Approach WBID averages within each

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3444Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams region because of EPA’s confidence in the screening of that reference population. In the West Central, EPA is using the 75th percentile of SCI approach WBID averages because of reduced confidence in the quality of sites within that population and the reduced sample size. The details of this decision and analysis are included in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA concluded that a reference population typified by either healthy biological conditions or least-disturbed conditions provides EPA with the confidence that these are least-disturbed sites and that the use of upper bound percentiles from this population to establish the criteria was acceptable. A second related comment was that no analysis had been provided to support the 75th percentile as an accurate statistic for defining the distribution of reference sites and that its selection was a policy and not technical decision. As stated above, in response to this and similar comments, EPA revisited the percentile selection process and decided on the percentiles indicated above. EPA defends the selection of an upper percentile of biologically healthy and least disturbed populations of values as technically defensible for protecting streams. Again, EPA provided a detailed argument of why that is so, related to the fact that the nutrient dynamics of such sites are, implicitly, consistent with that found in sites supporting designated uses. EPA also affirms that the 75th percentile is indeed a statistical characteristic of a population distribution. EPA agrees that the final decision to use a specific percentile does include the exercise of judgment, but that judgment is not arbitrary but rather is based on a consideration of risk to uses based on the degree to which the basis population represents conditions expected to support uses and a consideration of errors in making use attainment decisions based on the resultant values. This judgment is informed by technical information as well. Lastly, some comments asked why a 90th percentile was not used, as suggested by FDEP. Again, EPA has finalized streams criteria for most regions using the 90th percentile when there are sufficient data available to provide EPA with enough confidence that the reference site population is least-disturbed, and closely reflective of minimally impacted conditions. In the West Central Region, where fewer reference sites are available, EPA has continued to set the criteria at the 75th percentile because there is less confidence that these sites reflect least-disturbed conditions. In the absence of a clear, un-confounded stressor-response relationship, EPA elected to use a reference condition approach to develop protective numeric criteria. For the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as noted above for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified benchmark population of reference sites.

Comment IDs: 1414-1.001.007, 1476-2.001.071, 1761-3.001.119, 1900.001.011 Response: EPA received comments disagreeing with how the Agency decided to classify streams into Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWRs). EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, EPA has decided to split the Panhandle Region into West and East regions and to restrict the size of the West Central (previously Bone Valley) Region. There were several comments related to intraregional classification. The first comment was that the approach for regionalization was too broad, that criteria will

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3445Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams not protect the diversity and unique characteristics of waters that vary within regions, and that site-specific studies and criteria would account for more variability. As outlined in the nutrient criteria guidance, EPA recognizes that classification aims to reduce as much natural variability within classes as possible. Such classification efforts must weigh the trade-off between specificity, which would be optimized if each site were considered separately, and resource requirements and data availability, which clearly limit how fine a classification is possible. EPA considered a variety of regionalization schemes and has decided on the regionalization described above and detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA believes the regionalization is protective of Florida streams since EPA considered the full range of variability in its selection of sites and captures that variability in its selection of the SCI thresholds based on inter-site variability among reference sites and in its selection of the upper bound percentiles of the reference population.

A second comment related to stream classification was that 4th order streams are different from 1st order streams in structure and function and in responses to nutrient loads. EPA agrees that size can affect stream processes and EPA considered stream size, but did not find a compelling basis for differentiating criteria based on stream size for the final rule since stronger differences were attributable to interregional classes as detailed in the proposed rule and final rule TSDs. EPA would not rule out regional refinement in the future based on stream size should compelling evidence support such a change. The federal site-specific alternative criteria procedure established in the rule may be used for such changes when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. A third comment is that stream classifications should have been based on concentrations and not N:P ratios. EPA agrees that N:P ratios along should not be the sole basis for classification which is why EPA considered concentrations as well as N:P ratios in its classification and detailed this in the draft rule and final rule TSDs. There were also several comments related to interregional classification elements. Some comments argued that soil and geologic differences were related to P but not N and, therefore, were not appropriate bases for NWR for nitrogen. EPA considered many factors related to classification and considered several classification options. Clearly, there are differences among the regions with respect to geologically reactive P deposits, especially highlighted in differences between the North Central and West Central regions and other regions. EPA revisited the regionalization associated with the geologically reactive Hawthorn Group in response to these and other comments and selected the regionalization described above for both TP and TN, which is described in detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent. EPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion at this time. However, EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a color-TN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA’s analysis of the stream TN

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3446Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams
data indicated that the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than non-Panhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. Other comments suggested that geology was an appropriate basis for regionalization, but that biological comparisons should also be used to identify regional differences. EPA’s regionalization began with a framework developed by FDEP that was based on biology. The FDEP effort considered bioregions from their bioassessment programs as one element in their classification framework. Not surprisingly, the final EPA NWR classification is similar to the bio-regionalization developed by FDEP for their SCI tool, with some obvious differences dictated by geological factors. Lastly, EPA received comments that nutrient availability is controlled by soil chemistry, geology, and hydrogeology and that classes should be based on these factors for areas with adequate supporting data. EPA agrees and considered all of these factors, data availability, and appropriate response characteristics in establishing the NWR classes. Soil chemistry reflects underlying geology, which was an element used by EPA in developing the NWRs. Similarly, EPA considered ecoregions which themselves rely heavily on geology, soil type, and hydrology. Importantly, however, EPA also considered trends in observed nutrient distributions to verify and guide classification. It is the behavior of nutrients that manifests the effects of the major classification drivers, so EPA relied on this to help guide final class selection.

Comment IDs: 0508-1.001.010, 0588.001.010, 0589.001.029, 0644.001.011, 0649.001.003, 0661.001.004, 0662.001.006, 0723.001.003,0723.001.004, 0723.001.007, 0732.001.010, 0734.001.006, 0739.001.004, 0739.001.005, 0770.001.003, 0915­ 1.001.007, 0964.001.003, 1012.001.009, 1292-1.001.007, 1292-1.001.049, 1292-1.001.007, 1292-1.001.079, 1304-1.001.029, 1348­ 1.001.010, 1348-1.001.011, 1360-1.001.005, 1364-1.001.017, 1416-1.001.024, 1433-1.001.007, 1465-1.001.003, 1480-1.001.011, 1480-2.001.014, 1530.001.006, 1667-1.001.007, 1700-1.001.005, 1761-3.001.119, 1774-1.001.044, 1777-2.001.087, 1782­ 1.001.016, 1786-1.001.026, 1805-3.001.104, 1834-1.001.006, 1834-4.001.009, 1834-4.001.010, 1834-4.001.012, 1834-4.001.020, 1836.001.055, 1869-1.001.008, 1900.001.011, 2372-1.001.011 Response: EPA also received comments related to implementation. The first theme within these comments was related to assessment errors and conflicts between biological conditions and impairment decisions which could result from EPA’s criteria. EPA has considered all these and other comments related to this first theme. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3447Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the Benchmark Approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula regions. This modified Benchmark Approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed landcover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. Because EPA has relied on this more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified in that region. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. In the same vein, EPA received comments arguing that, under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, some reference or pristine waterbodies would be deemed to be impaired. Some of this perception seems to have been the result of analyses by FDEP and others of the number of FDEP reference waterbodies that would not meet the proposed criteria. First, there are likely no pristine waterbodies, defined as that reflecting the original pre-human state, left in Florida. The impacts of centuries of human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere have made the existence of pristine conditions essentially extinct in Florida. Even Florida’s original benchmark site population, presented as pristine, contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor, however, EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered that several of FDEP’s benchmark reference sites were included on the State’s section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various reasons, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairments. The salient point is that any conclusion of the number of “reference” waterbodies that would be deemed impaired depends on a careful and accurate depiction of reference and the conclusions using the population originally presented by FDEP presented issues that were problematic. EPA is using a modified Benchmark Approach for its final criteria that addresses many of these problematic screening issues. That modified approach is described above and in more detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. Also related to this first theme, EPA disagrees with comments that assert impairment of reference sites based on error rate analyses described in the comments. EPA views the type of analysis suggested in the comment as inappropriate and flawed because these analyses proposed calculating error rates using traditional statistical assumptions about attainment and non-attainment. EPA observed that there are no true independent “attaining” or “non-attaining” populations upon which to test the criteria because criteria do not yet exist, therefore these tests are invalid. The concept of false positive and false negative rates is predicated on the assumption that an independent assessment of the attainment and non-attainment is available. For example, to estimate the false positive rate of a diagnostic test, physicians observe whether patients actually contract a disease. In the case of nutrient criteria, the reference distribution is the only means of defining attainment and non-attainment. Hence, any discussion of false positive or false negative rates is not relevant. Further under this first implementation theme, some commenters argued that some streams would meet the criteria yet still display

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3448Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams unhealthy biological conditions and that, therefore, implementation of the criteria should require biological validation that waters attaining the criteria are in fact healthy. EPA agrees it is possible that some streams would meet nutrient criteria yet still display unhealthy conditions but disagrees with the reasons why and the implication. There are many stressors that threaten aquatic life. Nutrient criteria are meant to protect against the effect of elevated nutrients on aquatic life. The criteria cannot control for other stressors which may also result in unhealthy conditions. Moreover, it may be that some streams meet the criteria and still contain unhealthy conditions due to nutrients. The approach for criteria derivation used here could potentially result in nutrient impacts below the proposed criteria. EPA has attempted to minimize that risk with the approach used in the final rule based on stringent criteria, biological screens, and higher percentiles but it is not a guarantee that our generally applicable criteria are most appropriate for every individual stream. In a case where the proposed criteria are proven not to protect aquatic life from nutrient effects, then site-specific criteria can be set to provide more protective criteria. 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. Requiring independent validation of biological impairment would, ostensibly, invalidate the need for protective nutrient criterion to protect aquatic life. The last argument under the first implementation theme was that EPA’s proposed approach for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria assumed elevated nutrient levels are responsible for impairment when they may not be and/or that it is impossible to determine if designated uses will be protected. EPA disagrees that it is impossible to determine that elevated concentrations will impair uses or if uses will be protected by setting the final criteria. 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 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 decided to use the reference approach described based on the specific SCI approach in the West Central Region and the modified Benchmark Approach in all other regions, following EPA peer reviewed guidance for deriving criteria. Such an approach concludes that concentrations observed in least disturbed reference populations known to be unimpaired by nutrient impacts would continue to protect designated uses from nutrient impacts. The basis for this is articulated in the EPA nutrient criteria guidance documents. As noted above, the final rule provides flexibility for the any entity to submit SSAC for waterbodies where additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The second comment theme under implementation relates to the cost of regulation. Commenters argue that local and state governments will spend a lot of money to come up with site-specific criteria within the very broad regions established to set the proposed criteria and that this will squander resources that could be used to correct true impairments. EPA disagrees and believes

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3449Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the resultant criteria will be sufficiently protective across the broad NWRs and the criteria will identify true impairments, obviating the need for site-specific criteria except where necessary. Indeed, EPA expended great effort with the classification element to minimize the need for site-specific criteria. Where local and state government determines a SSAC is necessary to most appropriately address specific waterbodies, the development of those SSAC should cost roughly the same as what it would cost to develop the appropriate limits under the narrative nutrient criteria. The extent of impacts due to nutrient enrichment in Florida and across the nation is substantial. EPA agrees that the efforts to solve this pressing problem will involve an investment of resources. But EPA hopes all parties agree such investments are necessary to protect our vital resources from the pervasive effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution that is clearly evident in Florida and across the country.

Comment IDs: 1135.001.005, 1197.001.005, 1482-1.001.049, 1714-1.001.002, 1920-1.001.016, 1920-1.001.021 Response: EPA received a variety of positive comments that are acknowledged here. Most of these commenters argued that the proposed criteria were scientifically sound because they were based on biologically healthy streams and that this approach was better than least-disturbed based approaches. EPA agrees that the biologically healthy reference approach is scientifically defensible for criteria derivation and used that approach to derive criteria for the West Central NWR. EPA also considers its modification to FDEP’s least-disturbed based approach to be a valid approach for criteria derivation. Others commented that EPA’s nutrient criteria guidance for the approach used does not require proof of a specific stressor-response to establish criteria. EPA agrees. 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 also agrees with those who commented that criteria are required to restore and protect waters to unimpaired conditions.

References: 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. Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542. Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429. Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3450Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643-657. Cross, W.F., J.B. Wallace, A.D. Rosemond, and S.L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565. Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427. Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158. Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477. 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 production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142. Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368. Gaiser, E.E., J.C. Trexler, J.H. Richards, D.L.Childers, D. Lee, A.L. Edwards, L.J. Scinto, K. Jayachandran, G.B. Noe, and R.D. Jones, 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723. Lohman, K., J.R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23. Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835. Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117. Notestein, S.K., T.K. Frazer, M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G. S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3451Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Rosemond, A.D., P.J. Mulholland, and J.W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J.L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289. Slavik, K., B.J. Peterson, L.A. Deegan, W. B. Bowden, A.E. Hershey, J.E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939-954. Stelzer, R.S. and G.A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367. 

# III.C.2.D - PROPOSED CRITERIA: DURATION AND FREQUENCY Comment ID 1217-2.001.047

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC Mosaic also supports EPA's decision to use geometric rather than arithmetic means in calculating compliance, because this will mitigate the otherwise distorting influence of outlier data on statistical outcomes. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.068

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams • The evaluation strategy for Florida streams is purported to be established based on three aspects of the distribution of TN and TP; magnitude, duration and frequency. These components of the evaluation are appropriate as nutrient dynamics in streams are related to hydrologic events. The components expressed above are therefore established with the recognition that there is spatial and temporal variability in nutrient dynamics. Unfortunately, an annual geometric mean is a statistic that is only representative of a typical value for a stream if sufficient data are used in the calculation of the geometric mean. Typically, nutrient concentrations in Florida streams are collected either quarterly or, at best, monthly. Rarely are there cases where the sampling frequency is more frequent than monthly sampling at a particular station. This will lead to some uncertainty in the estimate of the true mean. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.069

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3452Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Streams

• Given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean, there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean that is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.174

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County The evaluation strategy for Florida streams is purported to be established based on three aspects of the distribution of TN and TP; magnitude, duration and frequency. These components of the evaluation are appropriate as nutrient dynamic in streams are related to hydrologic events. The components expressed above are therefore established with the recognition that there is spatial and temporal variability in nutrient dynamics. Unfortunately, an annual geometric mean is a statistic that is only representative of a typical value for a stream if sufficient data are used in the calculation of the geometric mean. Typically, nutrient concentrations in Florida streams are collected either quarterly or, at best, monthly. Rarely are there cases where the sampling frequency is more frequent than monthly sampling at a particular station. Further, many individual WBIDs will have only one sampling station which is consistently sampled and from which the data are derived. Lastly, given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean which is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means that it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. For instance, consider the following example of a theoretical TP distribution with a geometric mean of 0.739 (i.e., the criterion for the TP in the Bone Valley region) and an estimated standard deviation of 0.15. We conducted a simulation by building a data pool of 10000 simulated TP observations from a stream in the Bone Valley region based on these statistics (Figure 9) and then pulled at random 12 observations from this pool. We then calculated a mean of the log transformed values and exponentiated those mean values to derive the geometric mean. Each trial outcome then represents the expected geometric mean for a given year. We performed 1000 trials to generate an expected distribution of annual means. The true geometric mean is 0.739 (or a very close approximation depending purely on randomness). Therefore, we can calculate the number of times out of 1000 when the annual geometric mean would exceed the known (or true) geometric mean. Results suggest that when the true mean is 0.739, and 12 observations are taken each year, the annual geometric mean will exceed the true mean nearly 50% of the time by chance. This means that the "one in three years" is likely to result in falsely declaring a stream reach to be impaired when in actuality it meets the criterion value. An alternative approach would be to use a statistical test to ensure that this type one error rate is controlled (e.g., 5%). This type of statistical inference has been employed by FDEP in its rule for violations of its dissolved oxygen criterion using the binomial test and would help to ensure that undue burdens are not imposed on water resource managers.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3453Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.018

Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division EPD also has serious concerns about the methodology used to arrive at the criteria, as well as the manner in which implementation costs were addressed. In addition, there is confusion in the footnote used to define the frequency and duration of the criteria. It is not clear that the long-term average is actually the long-term arithmetic average of the annual geometric means. Our concerns are described in more detail in the attachment to this letter. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.044

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners The evaluation strategy for Florida streams is purported to be established based on three aspects of the distribution of TN and TP; magnitude, duration and frequency. These components of the evaluation are appropriate as nutrient dynamics in streams are related to hydrologic events. The components expressed above are therefore established with the recognition that there is spatial and temporal variability in nutrient dynamics. Unfortunately, an annual geometric mean is a statistic that is only representative of a typical value for a stream if sufficient data are used in the calculation of the geometric mean. Typically, nutrient concentrations in Florida streams are collected either quarterly or, at best, monthly. Rarely are there cases where the sampling frequency is more frequent than monthly sampling at a particular station. This will lead to some uncertainty in the estimate of the true mean. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.045

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean, there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean that is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.085

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners The evaluation strategy for Florida streams is purported to be established based on three aspects of the distribution of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3454Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams TN and TP; magnitude, duration and frequency. These components of the evaluation are appropriate as nutrient dynamic in streams are related to hydrologic events. The components expressed above are therefore established with the recognition that there is spatial and temporal variability in nutrient dynamics. Unfortunately, an annual geometric mean is a statistic that is only representative of a typical value for a stream if sufficient data are used in the calculation of the geometric mean. Typically, nutrient concentrations in Florida streams are collected either quarterly or, at best, monthly. Rarely are there cases where the sampling frequency is more frequent than monthly sampling at a particular station. Further, many individual WBIDs will have only one sampling station which is consistently sampled and from which the data are derived. Lastly, given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean which is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means that it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. For instance, consider the following example of a theoretical TP distribution with a geometric mean of 0.739 (i.e., the criterion for the TP in the Bone Valley region) and an estimated standard deviation of 0.15. We conducted a simulation by building a data pool of 10000 simulated TP observations from a stream in the Bone Valley region based on these statistics (Figure 5) and then pulled at random 12 observations from this pool. We then calculated a mean of the log transformed values and exponentiated those mean values to derive the geometric mean. Each trial outcome then represents the expected geometric mean for a given year. We performed 1000 trials to generate an expected distribution of annual means. The true geometric mean is 0.739 (or a very close approximation depending purely on randomness). Therefore, we can calculate the number of times out of 1000 when the annual geometric mean would exceed the known (or true) geometric mean. Results suggest that when the true mean is 0.739, and 12 observations are taken each year, the annual geometric mean will exceed the true mean nearly 50% of the time by chance. This means that the "one in three years" is likely to result in falsely declaring a stream reach to be impaired when in actuality it meets the criterion value. An alternative approach would be to use a statistical test to ensure that this type one error rate is controlled (e.g., 5%). This type of statistical inference has been employed by FDEP in its rule for violations of its dissolved oxygen criterion using the binomial test and would help to ensure that undue burdens are not imposed on water resource managers. 

# Comment ID 1356-1.001.015

Author Name: Hayes D. Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce 3. As mentioned for the lake criteria, there is concern about appropriate monitoring strategies (i.e., number of stations per stream reach, frequency of sampling, etc.) necessary to evaluate compliance with the proposed TP and TN criteria for streams and rivers. Since EPA acknowledges the impact of instream processes on TP and TN concentrations, we suggest the averaging of multiple sites within a stream reach or the evaluation of compliance at the downstream node. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.004

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3455Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams A geometric mean is an inappropriate statistical measure to use for compliance evaluation, since it will still tend to skew towards higher values, though less than an arithmetic mean. A percentile value should be used to evaluate compliance. How much overlap is there in the total N and total P values for impaired vs. unimpaired waterways for nutrients? Is there a statistically significant difference between the chlorophyll a, TN and TP values of waterbodies currently identified as unimpaired vs. those identified as impaired for nutrients? EPA should perform a two-way ANOVA or other applicable statistical test for each parameter of interest and provide the results. The proposed rule also needs to consider the influence of hurricanes and major storms on in-stream nutrient concentrations. Increased sediment loads and increased debris washed into waterways typically tend to increase nutrient concentrations. These effects may not be able to be controlled with good watershed management techniques, especially if there is more than one major storm in a season. This is another reason that the long-term median of nutrient concentrations should be used to determine compliance. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.018

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works p.84 Replace geometric mean with median. Geometric mean still has a bias towards greater-magnitude values, though less bias than an arithmetic mean would have. Long-term is 10 years or 5 years, depending on values. If there is not enough long-term data to draw any conclusions, is DEP's current evaluation process to determine impairment to be followed? 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.025

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division An analysis by FDEP concluded that rivers and streams would have to achieve annual geometric means that are less than the proposed criteria for TN and TP in order to meet the standards for these criteria two-thirds of the time. For this reason, the effective concentrations of TN and TP required to meet the no-more-than-once-in-three-year excursion frequency are lower than the actual concentrations criteria proposed by EPA. Therefore, EPA should consider statistical distributions of total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations when establishing the magnitudes of these criteria. 

# Comment ID 1464-1.001.011

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. C. The Stream Criteria are Scientifically Sound The proposed criteria for protection of rivers and streams are sound, given the pressing need to establish standards

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3456Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams and the problems inherent in developing standards. The proposed standards serve as an approximation of nitrogen and phosphorus levels that clearly should be avoided.[12] As explained by Dr. Burkholder, standards at least this stringent are supported by the current record. Further, numerous studies cited by Dr. Burkholder provide independent confirmation of the critical need to protect rivers and streams from levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that are higher than those in the proposed EPA Florida standards. Again, however, the provisions for determining whether a particular water body complies with the standard must be strengthened. Samples should be taken at least monthly and compliance should be determined on the basis of a seasonal median. [12] 12 As shown by the 2000 EPA stream criteria for Ecoregion XII, the best 25th percentile for all streams, including those known to be badly impaired, was 560 ug TN/L and 40 ug TP/L. The proposed numbers for the Florida Panhandle are 824 ug TN/L and 43 ug TP/L, and the proposal for other Florida streams is still more lenient. 

# Comment ID 1464-1.001.040

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. A. Flow and Dilution Assumptions in Implementation The proposal indicates how dilution is to be factored into permit writing. Florida is directed to: use an appropriate design flow condition, where necessary, for permit limit derivation or load and wasteload allocations that is consistent with the criteria duration and frequently established in this section (e.g. average annual flow for a criterion magnitude expressed as an average annual geometric mean). (Fed. Reg. p. 4226) However, as discussed above, the criteria duration and frequency proposals do not require adequate monitoring and allow intolerably long periods of low water quality. Further, use of average annual flows in permit writing would result in allowing much higher concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus during critical low flow conditions. While it is true that the standards were generated using data based on annual averages, it is also true that aquatic life does not have to survive "on average" - rather, it has to survive every moment or not at all. Further, if a water body is seriously affected by unnatural algal or bacteria growth for any substantial period, that should be seen as an impairment. The record does not contain evidence showing that high concentrations of nitrogen or phosphorus are tolerated by sensitive species in Florida waters or that high average monthly concentrations are tolerated by aquatic life over the long term. Beneficial aquatic life needs to be protected during critical periods of short-term high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus. Accordingly, in permit writing, the nitrogen and phosphorus criteria set forth in the rule should be met at least as a monthly average. Further, flows no lower than the 30q10 low flow should be used in writing permit limits.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3457Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1464-2.001.029

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. Assessment of compliance should be based on data collected at least monthly, and the sampling frequency should be stipulated - Use of annual geometric means to determine compliance with the draft stream criteria could allow long periods of high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, which could result in impairment of the waters for designated uses and cause long-term impacts on the biological integrity of the stream system. This potential problem would be compounded by the proposed allowance of exceeding the standard once within a three-year period, for example in south Florida if that exceedence was to occur in the summer (wet) season when the streams would be most susceptible to nutrient overloading. Compliance assessment should be based on seasonal medians from data collected at least monthly (see Robertson and Roerish 1999, Stansfield 2001; and see above comments under Section 1, Lakes). A minimum annual sample size also should be specified. Otherwise, situations could easily arise wherein there were insufficient data to enable sound assessment of stream conditions. More frequent sampling should be considered during known periods of algal blooms, oxygen deficits, and/or other phenomena characteristic of waters impacted by excessive nutrient additions (e.g. Glasgow and Burkholder 2000). 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.025

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute I. Application During Extreme Weather Events. As EPA considers implementation of its proposed criteria, it must also consider the fact that Florida's surface water systems are driven by rainfall and Florida periodically has extreme weather events. It may not be possible to meet the proposed criteria during the large storms and hurricanes that affect Florida. EPA's criteria should not apply during such events and discharges during such events should not be considered when evaluating compliance; relief from applicability should be built into the criteria themselves. 

# Comment ID 1475-1.001.007

Author Name: Arrington D. Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District How will droughts, hurricanes and other significant disturbances be addressed and factored into, or excluded from, data

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3458Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams sets used to evaluate numeric nutrient criteria compliance? Instream water quality often recovers quickly (on the order of days), though significant storm events and especially repeat storm events can alter water quality for months. Research has shown that large flood control releases significantly depress salinity conditions in the Loxahatchee River estuary, and that altered salinity conditions, including greater salinity variability, can significantly degrade seagrass (Riddler et al. 2006). 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.072

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District E. Analyses to Support Duration and Frequency Criteria are Incomplete Water quality criteria include magnitude (concentration that exerts an adverse effect), duration (exposure period, or averaging period) and frequency (how long it takes the system to recover) criteria. Frequency criteria are generally less definitive than threshold and duration criteria because the magnitude and duration of an adverse event are measured directly by dose-response studies while the frequency requires judgment to determine how often an adverse event can be allowed to occur without causing unacceptable harm. The lack of dose-response information for Florida streams makes selection of both the magnitude and duration criteria subjective and arbitrary. USEPA provided no analysis as part of its proposed rule that defines the proposed annual geometric mean as the averaging period that best defines ecological effects, and specifically requested comments on this component. It is not possible to assess this and any other alternative without a good understanding of the dose-response relationships. The lack of technical support for the duration criterion further illustrates the difficulties setting numeric criteria without an understanding of dose-response. Without this understanding, numeric criteria define only where there are values that exceed 75% of those measurements at reference sites. The District substantially agrees with FDEP comments D2, G, and I and requests that USEPA provide support and analysis as to why the proposed F and D were chosen. Additionally, based on existing evidence, USEPA should undertake additional peer review and research to properly produce and confirm a defensible D and F. 

# Comment ID 1480-1.001.014

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport 9. Please clarify how non-detectable data will be used in the computation of Annual Geometric Means. Should nondetectable data be set equal to half the value of the detection limit or to zero? Often the nitrate-nitrite concentrations are non-detectable but if the detection limit is used in combination with TKN concentrations to obtain the Total Nitrogen, this may cause the Annual Geometric Mean to be exceeded.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3459Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1647-1.001.016

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Hydrologic Variability The proposed criteria does not take into account Florida's hydrologic variability which includes wet and dry seasons and wet and dry years, such as those periods dominated by El Nino and La Nina cycles. This will cause periodic sampling spikes that could exceed the three year frequency threshold levels. There is a correlation with increases in TN during periods of increased rainfall, such as during an El Nino event. A rainfall-runoff relationship needs to be established and then the proposed criteria thresholds should be adjusted accordingly to correspond to these rainfall events. The annual geometric mean should consider an allowable exceedance to account for hydrologic variability (FDEP 2010d). 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.083

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2. Effect of Criteria Duration and Frequency on In-stream Concentrations EPA should not choose a percentile of a distribution to establish the magnitude of the criteria without simultaneously considering the duration and frequency of the criteria. FDEP does not support the proposed allowable exceedance frequency of not more than once in a three year period because the variability between years for measured nutrient concentrations is significant and will result in exceedances of the standard due to natural conditions and/or from the inherent variability of sampling/testing procedures. Another way of looking at the issue is that the variability is so great that the long term concentration necessary to achieve the criteria at this frequency of exceedance is far less than the numeric magnitude of the actual criteria (as calculated by EPA's proposed 75th percentile of the distribution). To achieve the magnitude of the criteria two thirds of the time (more than half), a lower concentration will actually need to be attained over the long run. Because of the relative lack of cause-effect relationship between nutrients and biological response in streams, and the natural variability of nutrient concentrations from year to year, this would add yet another source of unjustifiable Type I error. The EPA proposed criteria are expressed as annual geometric mean values. However, it is important to consider the fact that the geometric mean benchmark values are measures of central tendency used to represent a much wider range of variability both above and below these geometric means. This variability occurs both due to natural factors (climatic and hydrologic) and factors inherent in sampling and testing procedures (Figures 28 and 29). Given this variability, minimally disturbed waterbodies with long-term (multiyear) average nutrient concentrations fully achieving the magnitude of EPA's proposed in-stream criteria will exceed the 1 out of 3 year annual geometric mean criteria with some frequency. The frequency of exceedance will be a function of both the long-term average and variability (interannual and within year variance). The closer a stream's long-term average concentration is to the magnitude of the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3460Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams criterion, the more frequently it will exceed the annual geometric mean, such that a waterbody with a long term average approaching the magnitude of the criterion will be expected to have a fifty percent exceedance frequency of the annual geometric mean. Inclusion of a return frequency test, such as the proposed no more than one exceedance in a three year period, will require a long-term average well below the criteria to consistently achieve the criteria two thirds of the time. Original comment letter contains additional information about streams and rivers in Figure 28. TP and TP concentrations (and annual geometric means) in the minimally disturbed Econfina River as a function of stream discharge, in relation to EPA's proposed IPVs of the Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information about rivers and streams in Figure 29. TP and TP annual geometric means in the minimally disturbed Withlacoochee River as a function of stream discharge, in relation to EPA's proposed IPVs of the Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.086

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection The analysis discussed below was undertaken to estimate long term average (multiyear) level of nutrients required to confidently achieve FDEP's proposed criteria when a one in three exceedance requirement of the annual geometric mean is added as an assessment or compliance requirement. As stated above, the exceedance frequency can be estimated based on the long-term average and estimate of variability. The best estimate of variability for a stream fully achieving the criterion is calculated from the inter-annual variability (standard deviation) at the benchmark sites. Inter-annual waterbody standard deviations were calculated for both total phosphorus and total nitrogen for each nutrient region. The true long-term inter-annual standard deviation was calculated as the pooled interannual standard deviation of all benchmark WBIDs plus the pooled with-in year sampling standard deviation, such that: Original comment letter contains additional information about rivers and streams as an equation of the true long-term inter-annual standard deviation on page 55 from the Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.088

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection The estimated true inter-annual standard deviations are listed in Table 6 by nutrient parameter and nutrient region. The

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3461Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams frequency with which a waterbody will exceed the criterion can be estimated using an assumed lognormal frequency distribution around its long-term average geometric mean concentration and the standard deviation values listed in Table 7. For example, a stream with a long-term average TP concentration of 0.054 mg/L would be expected to exceed the Panhandle stream criterion approximately 20% of the time on an annual basis. Original comment letter contains additional information about streams and rivers in Table 6. Estimated inter-annual standard deviations of natural log transformed TP and TN concentrations within Florida's benchmark streams by nutrient regions. The values represent the best estimates of the expected year to year variability in annual geometric mean concentrations within streams that fully achieve the criterion and support the designated use (i.e., benchmark) (ACTUAL TABLE IS BLACKED OUT). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information about streams and rivers in Table 7. The Long-term Geometric Mean necessary to consistently achieve the in-stream protection criteria proposed by FDEP expressed as an annual geometric mean not to be surpassed more than once in a three year period, using a 25% type I error rate of the Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.091

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Because of the natural variability inherent in their nutrient regimes (driven largely by hydrology), FDEP believes that stream criteria should be expressed as a 5-year arithmetic mean of the annual geometric means. This concept is consistent with (though slightly shorter than) the assessment period approved by EPA as part of the Impaired Waters Rule. Further, NPDES permits are reviewed on a 5 year cycle, and based upon site-specific modeling, permits could be written to assure that a discharge will not exceed the criteria, including during critical conditions. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.095

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection G. Comments on Available Dataset and the Approaches Used for Stream Criteria DEP agrees with the principle stated in our Nutrient TSD that the appropriate frequency and duration components of the criteria should be based on and be consistent with how the data were analyzed to derive the criteria. However, the U.S. EPA's nutrient proposal does not appear to follow this principle. To evaluate the appropriateness of the frequency and duration components of EPA's stream nutrient criteria proposal, the details concerning the derivation of the criteria must be understood. The EPA derived the proposed stream criteria by assembling a large (many tens of thousands data points) comprehensive dataset of individual measurements of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3462Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams nutrients and biological indicators collected during a six year period from 2004 through 2009. The dataset was then screened to eliminate data that were not associated with a passing SCI score. Because SCI data were available for relatively fewer sites, this resulted in a much smaller (i.e., 521 data points for TN and 525 data points for TP) "reference" dataset. This smaller data set was then used to calculate geometric means for TN and TP for each site for the entire period of record. The resulting geometric means were then separated spatially into EPA's four nutrient regions for further analysis. The proposed numeric TP and TN criteria were then calculated as the 75th percentile of the site geometric means across the six year period for each nutrient region. The 75th percentile was calculated based on a lognormal distribution of the site geometric means. As specified in Table 2-4 of EPA's Technical Support Document, the number of site means used to derive the criteria ranged from 17 in the North Central region to 131 in the Panhandle region for TP, with a similar range from 17 to 128 for TN. It is also important to note that there was an average of only two nutrient measurements over the entire six year period that were used to generate each site mean. Additionally, for the panhandle nutrient region, more than 75% of the site geometric means that were intended to characterize the nutrient regime at the sites were based on a single measurement during the six year period. In the other nutrient regions, from 45% to 59% of the site geometric means were generated from a single measurement during the six year period. In summary, EPA's proposed streams criteria were actually based on very few measurements and these data were inadequate to characterize the temporal variability of the systems (see more discussion on this topic below). EPA then expresses the proposed criteria as annual geometric mean TP and TN concentrations and recommends a two part test to evaluate compliance with the proposed criteria. Both parts of the test need to be met in order to satisfy the criteria. First, the measured annual geometric means cannot exceed the criteria more than once in a three year period. Second, the long-term arithmetic average of the annual geometric means cannot exceed the criteria. In this case, long-term is not defined. However, it should be consistent with DEP's 10-year planning list period and 7.5 year verified list period, as specified in the Impaired Waters Rule. There are a number of inconsistencies between the derivation of the criteria and the proposed assessment method that need to be addressed. First, the criteria were derived as the 75th percentiles of a lognormal distribution of "long-term" site geometric means, not the distribution of annual site geometric means as proposed in the duration portion of the criteria. This is important because the annual duration is used in both parts of the assessment method proposed by EPA. However, based on EPA's derivation of the criteria using long-term geometric means, there is no evidence provided to support the use of an annual duration or assessment method based on an annual duration. In contrast, DEP's proposed criteria were derived based on annual geometric means consistent with their proposed assessment methodology, which was based on an annual duration. Additionally, the second part of the assessment method requiring the long-term arithmetic average of the annual geometric means is inconsistent with the criteria derivation in two ways. First, criteria were derived using a 6-year averaging period, however, EPA recommends that the assessments be conducted using the 10-year planning list and the 7.5 year verified list averaging periods specified in the Impaired Waters Rule. Second and more importantly, the criteria were derived based on the geometric mean of the long-term site geometric means (i.e., a geometric mean of a geometric mean) and the recommended assessment method specifies that assessment should be based on the arithmetic mean of the annual geometric means (i.e., an arithmetic mean of a geometric mean). In this case, the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3463Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams derivation of the criteria is inconsistent with the assessment method in both the duration component (as described above) and the averaging method. Even if the criteria were derived using the appropriate annual duration, the recommended assessment method is still inconsistent with the criteria derivation, because calculating a geometric mean of a geometric mean will always produce a lower result than taking an arithmetic mean of a geometric mean. This inconsistency results in criteria that will have a higher than expected exceedance frequency and Type I error rate (i.e., identifying healthy sites as being impacted). It should also be noted that, as described above, the data available for the sites utilized in the derivation of the criteria was not sufficient to accurately characterize the nutrient regime at those sites for a year, and certainly they were not sufficient to characterize the six-year period used in the derivation of the criteria. Also, it appears that there was no analysis of the bias introduced into the derivation of the criteria from using sites with so few data points. This is in direct contrast with the thorough evaluation conducted by DEP to determine the effect of various data sufficiency endpoints when deriving our benchmark-based criteria. Based on DEP's analysis, a single nutrient measurement cannot be used to accurately characterize the nutrient regime at a site for a single year and especially not a six year period as was done by EPA. At a minimum, EPA should perform an analysis showing the effects of different minimal sample site sample size requirements on the derivation of the criteria. Also, there was no evaluation of the temporal distribution of the data used in the derivation of the criteria across the six year period. It appears that the dataset used to generate the criteria was disproportionately biased toward two of the six years, which may have been climatically abnormal. Overall, 75% of the data used to derive the criteria were collected in 2005 and 2006. This bias could result in the data used in the derivation of the criteria not adequately characterizing the "typical" longterm nutrient regime. Further, there was no evaluation of the seasonal distribution of the data used. Since nutrient concentrations can often vary seasonally, an evaluation should be conducted to determine if all seasons are proportionately represented in the dataset to assure the resulting criteria are not seasonally biased. 

# Comment ID 1688-2.001.013

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection The spatial component of associated with the methodology used to derive the criteria for the various types of flowing waters is less clear. For the FDEP's application of the reference approach, we used the "WBID" average value, rather than individual stations, and we are not clear whether EPA used WBID averages or station averages. If the criteria were based on some type of spatial average, EPA should consider including a spatial component to the expression of the criteria for flowing waters. This could be accomplished either quantitatively or qualitatively. 

# Comment ID 1768-1.001.010

Author Name: Armingeon N. Organization: St. Johns River Keeper

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3464Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

• For streams - the NNS criteria are scientifically sound, given the pressing need to establish standards. However, we would like to see the provisions for determining whether a particular water body complies with the standard be strengthened. Multiple samples should be taken each month and compliance should be determined on a monthly average. 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.072

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa The evaluation strategy for Florida streams is purported to be established based on three aspects of the distribution of TN and TP; magnitude, duration and frequency. These components of the evaluation are appropriate as nutrient dynamics in streams are related to events. The components expressed above are therefore established with the recognition that there is spatial and temporal variability in nutrient dynamics. Unfortunately, an annual geometric mean is a statistic that is only representative of a typical value for a stream if sufficient data are used in the calculation of the geometric mean. Typically, nutrient concentrations in Florida streams are collected either quarterly or, at best, monthly. Rarely are there cases where the sampling frequency is more frequent than monthly sampling at a particular station. This will lead to some uncertainty in the estimate of the true mean. Given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean which is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means that it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. 

# Comment ID 1770-1.001.037

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City The evaluation strategy for Florida streams is purported to be established based on three aspects of the distribution ofTN and TP; magnitude, duration and frequency. These components of the evaluation are appropriate as nutrient dynamics in streams are related to events. The components expressed above are therefore established with the recognition that there is spatial and temporal variability in nutrient dynamics. Unfortunately, an annual geometric mean is a statistic that is only representative of a typical value for a stream if sufficient data are used in the calculation of the geometric mean. Typically, nutrient concentrations in Florida streams are collected either quarterly or, at best, monthly. Rarely are there cases where the sampling frequency is more frequent than monthly sampling at a particular station. This will lead to some uncertainty in the estimate of the true mean. Given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean which is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means that it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.046

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3465Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County The evaluation strategy for Florida streams is purported to be established based on three aspects of the distribution of TN and TP; magnitude, duration and frequency. These components of the evaluation are appropriate as nutrient dynamics in streams are related to events. The components expressed above are therefore established with the recognition that there is spatial and temporal variability in nutrient dynamics. Unfortunately, an annual geometric mean is a statistic that is only representative of a typical value for a stream if sufficient data are used in the calculation of the geometric mean. Typically, nutrient concentrations in Florida streams are collected either quarterly or, at best, monthly. Rarely are there cases where the sampling frequency is more frequent than monthly sampling at a particular station. This will lead to some uncertainty in the estimate of the true mean. Given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean which is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means that it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.040

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville The evaluation strategy for Florida streams is purported to be established based on three aspects of the distribution of TN and TP; magnitude, duration and frequency. These components of the evaluation are appropriate as nutrient dynamics in streams are related to events. The components expressed above are therefore established with the recognition that there is spatial and temporal variability in nutrient dynamics. Unfortunately, an annual geometric mean is a statistic that is only representative of a typical value for a stream if sufficient data are used in the calculation of the geometric mean. Typically, nutrient concentrations in Florida streams are collected either quarterly or, at best, monthly. Rarely are there cases where the sampling frequency is more frequent than monthly sampling at a particular station. This will lead to some uncertainty in the estimate of the true mean. Given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean which is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means that it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.041

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission The evaluation strategy for Florida streams is purported to be established based on three aspects of the distribution ofTN and TP; magnitude, duration and frequency. These components of the evaluation are appropriate as nutrient dynamics in streams are related to events. The components expressed above are therefore established with the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3466Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams recognition that there is spatial and temporal variability in nutrient dynamics. Unfortunately, an annual geometric mean is a statistic that is only representative of a typical value for a stream if sufficient data are used in the calculation of the geometric mean. Typically, nutrient concentrations in Florida streams are collected either quarterly or, at best, monthly. Rarely are there cases where the sampling frequency is more frequent than monthly sampling at a particular station. This will lead to some uncertainty in the estimate of the true mean. Given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean which is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means that it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. 

# Comment ID 1781-1.001.002

Author Name: Roy N. Organization: Clean Water Network While we strongly support EPA establishing numeric nutrient standards for Florida surface waters, we have concerns about certain portions of the Florida standards proposal. In particular, (1) the proposed rules regarding determining compliance with the criteria by particular water bodies (duration and frequency), 

# Comment ID 1810-1.001.012

Author Name: Young L. Organization: Clean Water Network of Florida C. The stream criteria are scientifically sound. The proposed criteria for protection of rivers and streams are sound, given the pressing need to establish standards and the inherent problems of developing standards. The proposed standards serve as an approximation of nitrogen and phosphorus levels that clearly should be avoided.[12] As explained by Dr. Burkholder, standards at least this stringent are supported by the current record. Further, numerous studies, cited by Dr. Burkholder, provide independent confirmation of the critical need to protect rivers and streams from levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that are higher than those in the proposed EPA Florida standards. Again, however, the provisions for determining whether a particular water body complies with the standard must be strengthened. Samples should be taken at least monthly and compliance should be determined on the basis of a seasonal median. Further, we agree that EPA should establish stream standards for protection of downstream lakes and estuaries. [12] As shown by the 2000 EPA stream criteria for Ecoregion XII, the best 25th percentile for all streams, including those known to be badly impaired, was 560 ug TN/L and 40 ug TP/L. The proposed numbers for the Florida Panhandle are 824 ug TN/L and 43 ug TP/L, and the proposal for other Florida streams is still more lenient.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3467Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 2030-1.001.004

Author Name: Long A. Organization: For streams - the proposed criteria are scientifically sound, given the pressing need to establish standards. However, the provisions for determining whether a particular water body complies with the standard must be strengthened. Multiple samples should be taken each month and compliance should be determined on a monthly average. 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. 

# Response Comment IDs: 1353-1.001.018, 1476-2.001.072 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the Stream Condition Index (SCI) reference site selection method was arbitrary and simplistic. EPA has considered this and other comments. EPA notes that the reference set of streams used to derive the final criteria in the rule are different than the set of streams used to derive the proposed criteria, except in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). Other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference set of streams, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream set because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. As to the SCI reference site selection method, simplicity in and of itself is not generally an argument against a reference site selection method. The development of the SCI, used as the principal screening tool for the “biologically healthy” reference population, was not a simple process. The SCI incorporates a multitude of information in it, including rules for selecting least disturbed reference sites that were used to develop, score, and identify nutrient thresholds. Moreover, EPA disagrees that the method of selecting reference sites based on an SCI screen was arbitrary. EPA detailed in the TSD the lengthy, involved, scientifically defensible, and transparent process used to generate the multimetric index; a process that is based on well established EPA guidance and scientific principles. The bioassessment and bioindicator literature underlying the SCI is both broad and comprehensive. Similarly, the selection of an SCI threshold of 40 was not arbitrary, but rather based on two rigorous statistical analyses detailed in the TSD. EPA considered a variety of potential SCI endpoints, as detailed in the TSD, and concluded that a value of 40 was most defensible. EPA wanted to develop a reference selection process that was both defensible and clear. The process EPA proposed depended on easily replicable bioassessment results that are clear to identify and easy to use in selecting sites. The SCI also clearly responds to stressors, including nutrient stressors, as detailed in the TSD and citations therein. Other comments opposed the use of the SCI alone for site selection, arguing that natural conditions can influence the SCI tool

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3468Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams performance including physical-chemical parameters such as velocity, conductivity, pH, temp, and DO which can act as natural stressors. Natural variability does influence SCI scores, as reflected in the variability around minimally impacted reference sites SCI scores. EPA considered the influence of this natural variability explicitly in the selection of the SCI threshold and this consideration is described in great detail in the TSD appendices B-13 and B-14. There is also a great deal of information about human disturbance incorporated into the SCI score. For example, the development of the SCI included responsiveness to human disturbance gradients, including the Land Disturbance Index (LDI), in the selection, scoring, and threshold selection processes. So, the SCI scores inherently include considerations of human disturbance, and the selection of the threshold incorporates considerations of least-disturbed conditions. Lastly, the SCI was not used alone for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites. Other comments disagreed with the use of low dissolved oxygen as a basis to reject candidate reference sites because low oxygen may be a natural occurrence. EPA considered this and other comments. EPA retained the removal of sites listed by FDEP as impaired for dissolved oxygen for both the modified Benchmark and SCI reference populations as detailed in the final rule and TSD. EPA rejected sites because of low dissolved oxygen where those sites had been included by FDEP on Florida’s list of impaired waters, pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA. FDEP is not required to include waterbodies on the section 303(d) list where it demonstrates that concentrations of dissolved oxygen were measured below the numeric criteria due solely to natural conditions. Without such a demonstration, EPA must rely on FDEP’s identification of impairment when considering whether to select candidate reference sites. Concerns related to FDEP’s section 303(d) list should be addressed through the 303(d) listing process, which is independent of the nutrient criteria development process. Similarly, any comments about the appropriateness of Florida’s dissolved oxygen criteria should be addressed in FDEP’s criterion development process and not the nutrient criteria process. Some comments objected to the rejection of WBIDs listed as impaired for mercury or coliforms. EPA did not exclude WBIDs that were listed as impaired for any constituent other than dissolved oxygen and nutrients. This is detailed in the draft and final rule and TSD. Lastly, with regards to reference site selection, some comments sought clarification on the SCI reference approach. EPA provided a lengthy and clear description of the straightforward process used for selecting the SCI Population reference sites, which included a detailed description of the development of the SCI itself, in section 2 of the proposed rule TSD. 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 freshwater 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3469Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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. A number of comments disagreed with the sufficiency of data used by EPA. EPA considered these and other comments. The first assertion was that EPA used limited data. EPA considered all available data of defensible quality. For both the proposed and final rule for streams, this included screening and evaluating water chemistry data from more than 11,000 samples from over 6,000 sites statewide, and evaluating biological data of more than 2,000 samples from over 1,100 streams. A review of these data is included in the TSD and data files were also made available to the public. A second assertion was that data were collected during a fewclimatically abnormal years. It is unclear what is meant by climatically abnormal as Florida is typified by highly variable interannual climatic conditions (see figure below with annual precipitation data). Biological data were collected from 2004 to 2008, a period which, according to precipitation data from the Florida Climate Center, included years with annual average precipitationabove the 75th percentile of long-term average annual precipitation, years with annual averages below the 25th percentile of longterm average annual precipitation, and years with annual averages equal to the long-term average annual precipitation. Chemistry data were collected during an even longer period encompassing a similarly balanced number of variable climatic conditions. EPA concludes from this that the data used to derive numeric nutrient criteria incorporate the full range of hydrologic conditions representative of the variability typically observed in Florida including high, low and average conditions and that the range of conditions represented by the data actually reinforces the defensibility of the resultant criteria. There were comments that weighting or averaging was needed when using data from multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. In response to this and similar comments, EPA considered the autocorrelation issues involved in using site averages for sites located closely in space and explored the use of WBID averages. For the final rule, EPA has decided to use WBID averages instead of site averages, which reduces the effect of spatial autocorrelation. The reanalysis and justification are detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. The supplemental notice included analyses of WBID based spatial units. Lastly, EPA received comment that the data used were of varied detection limits and methodologies and included unqualified data. All the data used were verified by FDEPs approved Data Useability requirements as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA received several comments that disagreed with the criteria determination process using the reference condition approach. EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference approach, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream approach because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. The first comment within this general topic was that use of the upper bound of the distribution for “healthy” streams compromises the criteria. EPA considered several options for percentiles and incorporated the concern reflected in this comment into its consideration of which percentiles to use in the final rule. For the final rule, other than the West Central Region, EPA is using the 90th percentile of the modified Benchmark approach WBID averages within each region because of EPA’s confidence in the screening of that reference population. In the West Central, EPA is using the 75th percentile of SCI approach WBID averages because of reduced confidence in the quality of sites within that population and the reduced sample size. The details of this decision and analysis are included in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA concluded that a reference population typified by either healthy biological conditions or least-disturbed conditions provides EPA with the confidence that these are least-disturbed sites and that the use of upper bound percentiles from this population to establish the criteria was acceptable. A second related comment was that no analysis had been provided to support the 75th percentile as an accurate statistic for defining

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3470Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the distribution of reference sites and that its selection was a policy and not technical decision. As stated above, in response to this and similar comments, EPA revisited the percentile selection process and decided on the percentiles indicated above. EPA defends the selection of an upper percentile of biologically healthy and least disturbed populations of values as technically defensible for protecting streams. Again, EPA provided a detailed argument of why that is so, related to the fact that the nutrient dynamics of such sites are, implicitly, consistent with that found in sites supporting designated uses. EPA also affirms that the 75th percentile is indeed a statistical characteristic of a population distribution. EPA agrees that the final decision to use a specific percentile does include the exercise of judgment, but that judgment is not arbitrary but rather is based on a consideration of risk to uses based on the degree to which the basis population represents conditions expected to support uses and a consideration of errors in making use attainment decisions based on the resultant values. This judgment is informed by technical information as well. Lastly, some comments asked why a 90th percentile was not used, as suggested by FDEP. Again, EPA has finalized streams criteria for most regions using the 90th percentile when there are sufficient data available to provide EPA with enough confidence that the reference site population is least-disturbed, and closely reflective of minimally impacted conditions. In the West Central Region, where fewer reference sites are available, EPA has continued to set the criteria at the 75th percentile because there is less confidence that these sites reflect least-disturbed conditions. In the absence of a clear, un-confounded stressor-response relationship, EPA elected to use a reference condition approach to develop protective numeric criteria. For the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as noted above for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified Benchmarks population of reference sites.

Comment IDs: 1352-1.001.068, 1352-1.001.069, 1352-1.001.174, 1355-2.001.044, 1355-2.001.045, 1355-2.001.085, 1356­ 1.001.015, 1368-1.001.004, 1368-1.001.018, 1431-1.001.025, 1464-1.001.011, 1464-1.001.040, 1464-2.001.029, 1474-1.001.025, 1475-1.001.007, 1476-2.001.072, 1480-1.001.014, 1647-1.001.016, 1671-3.001.083, 1671-3.001.086, 1671-3.001.088, 1671­ 3.001.091, 1671-3.001.095, 1688-2.001.013, 1768-1.001.010, 1769-1.001.072, 1770-1.001.037, 1771-1.001.046, 1772-1.001.040, 1773-1.001.041, 1781-1.001.002, 1810-1.001.012, 2030-1.001.004 Response: EPA received several comments related to compliance issues with the proposed criteria. The first theme related to the central tendency measure considered, spatial scale of averaging, and the frequency and duration elements. The first set of comments under this theme related to the geometric mean. Some commenters argued that annual geometric means require sufficient data to be accurately representative and that monthly samples will lead to uncertainty in the estimate of the true mean. EPA has considered this and other comments in reevaluating the use of geometric means and the minimum observations necessary for developing mean concentration estimates. EPA developed the criteria in a manner consistent with the data available. The

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3471Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams geometric mean was deemed to be appropriate given the log-normal statistical behavior of nutrient data within and across sites. With regards to the sample frequency for compliance, FDEP has developed a process for evaluating consistency with numeric criteria, including geometric mean criteria. EPA expects FDEP to apply such processes to the nutrient criteria established here. The evaluation of the degree of chance involved in incorrectly concluding an exceedance when it does not exist has to be equally balanced by the risk of not identifying an exceedance when it does exist. EPA has considered different options and concluded that the annual geometric mean is the most appropriate representation and is using this in the final rule. EPA is not establishing any requirements regarding sampling frequency. FDEP can make any appropriate changes to their sampling standard operating procedures. The second set of comments under this theme suggested that averaging multiple sites within a stream reach to evaluate compliance at a downstream node would be most appropriate because of concerns about autocorrelation. EPA agrees and considered this issue in reevaluating the spatial scale over which averaging occurred. For the final rule EPA is using a WBID-based spatial scale, like that developed for the Benchmark approach advocated by FDEP and considered by EPA. The advantage to the WBID average approach is avoiding issues of spatial autocorrelation. A disadvantage of this approach is the need to protect entire stream sections from nutrient impairments; the averaging approach recommended could result in averaging potentially elevated downstream reaches with un-impacted upstream reach concentrations among other potential scenarios. EPA determined the advantages outweighed the disadvantages and selected WBID averages as the appropriate scale for final criteria in all the regions. A third element of this first theme was that medians should be used instead of geometric means. EPA considered medians as a possible option, and selected geometric means for the final rule because of the effects of sample size on median estimation. It is worth noting that medians are similar to geometric means when sample sizes are large for log-normally distributed variables. A fourth set of comments suggested that criteria be expressed as 5 year arithmetic means of annual geometric means, which would be consistent with assessment periods approved by EPA for the IWR and the 5 year NPDES cycle. EPA considered many averaging options when deciding on the final duration element of the stream criteria. An issue of concern for EPA is the lag time between detecting and responding to potential nutrient enrichment issues which would occur with long evaluation periods. This concern has to be weighed against the need for comprehensive treatment of data and identification of impairment. Some commenters argued that a 3 year rolling average of geometric means would be better than one-in-three year approaches while others argued that a three year rolling average approach would allow too much influence from one year’s data. There is an assumption that streams are resilient to disturbance and that one year’s exceedance is allowable, but allowing longer duration exceedances without action may not be supported scientifically as discussed in the proposed and final rule and proposed and final rule TSD. EPA chose to use an annual average not to be exceeded more than once in 3 years for the final rule based on this and similar comments. This duration was considered appropriate because of the generally chronic manifestation of nutrient effects on flowing systems. The no more than one in three year frequency element was considered appropriate because of the relative resilience of flowing water systems and evidence of recovery times expected of disturbed streams as outlined in the final rule TSD. The second theme under the general compliance question is that EPA should add guidance regarding sampling relative to streamflows and a load component and, similarly, that criteria should not apply during extreme weather events. EPA has considered these issues and concludes that compliance monitoring should be done in a manner consistent with the way in which data were collected to derive the criteria. FDEP has monitoring guidelines used for evaluating compliance with water quality criteria. EPA is not establishing any requirements regarding sampling frequency. FDEP can make any appropriate changes to their sampling standard operating procedures. A third theme under the compliance issue was that concentrations of TN and TP required to meet the 1-in-3 year excursion frequency are lower than the actual criteria proposed. EPA has considered this comment and has reviewed the effect of frequencies

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3472Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams on effective concentrations. This issue applies no less to nutrients than any water quality criterion with a 1-in-3 year frequency requirement and principally affects only streams whose average annual concentration is right at the criterion. The goal should be to maintain streams below this concentration to assure protection. A final comment theme requested information on how compliance will be determined within the first three years of the rule. EPA believes compliance with the proposed criteria will be conducted under the same strategy FDEP employs for evaluating compliance with all water quality criteria currently and that proposed numeric nutrient criteria would be evaluated as an additional criterion for consideration by the state in their CWA section 305(b) and 303(d) reporting cycles.

Comment ID: 1353-1.001.018 Response: This comment questioned how a long-term average would be calculated. For the final rule, EPA is using an annual mean and not a long-term average.

Comment ID: 1217-2.001.047 Response: EPA received a variety of positive comments that are acknowledged here. This comment supported the use of geometric means.
References: 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. Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542. Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429. Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643-657. Cross, W. F., J. B. Wallace, A. D. Rosemond, and S. L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565. Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427. Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3473Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477. 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 production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142. Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368. Gaiser, E.E., Trexler, J.C., Richards, J.H., Childers, D.L., Lee, D., Edwards, A.L., Scinto, L.J., Jayachandran, K., Noe, G.B., Jones, R.D. 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723. Lohman, K., J. R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23. Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835. Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117. Notestein, S. K., T. K. Frazer, M. V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G. S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386. Rosemond, A. D., P. J. Mulholland, and J. W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280. Rosemond, A. D., C. M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293. Rosemond, A. D., C. M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J. L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3474Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Slavik, K., B. J. Peterson, L. A. Deegan, W. B. Bowden, A. E. Hershey, J. E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939-954. Stelzer, R. S. and G. A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367. 

# III.C.2.Q.3 - METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING EPA’S PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR STREAMS QUESTION 3 Comment ID 1217-2.001.022

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC b. Use of Geometric Means The Rule proposes using geometric means, as opposed to arithmetic means, to determine compliance for the criteria for lakes and streams. See proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131. 43(c)(1)-(4). Mosaic generally supports the use of geometric means, since this will have the effect of reducing the distorting influence of outlier values, rendering extreme values at either end of a distribution less influential to the overall outcome. However, several aspects of the Rule's application of geometric means need to be clarified or revised. For example, the IPV table for lakes and streams indicates that to be compliant with the proposed criteria a waterway "may not exceed an IPV more than once in a three year period" and "the long-term average of annual geometric mean values shall not surpass the listed concentration values." See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(2)(i) (note a). In effect, a stream fails to meet the criteria if it is either above the IPV in one year out of three or if its long term geometric mean is above the IPV. This approach raises several issues. First, the Rule does not define "long-term," so it is unclear how the three-year geometric mean relates to this long-term average. If "long-term" means the entire period of record, then a long-term geometric mean could extend over an exceedingly long time frame that is far from representative of recent, current and future conditions. The absence of a definition of "long-term" is particularly problematic because a single year of atypically high nutrient levels could render a stream, for all intents and purposes, permanently impaired. Mosaic proposes that EPA clarify that the Rule will use the definition of long-term found in the State's IWR Rule, i.e., 7 1/2 years.[63] The Rule's "either-or" combination of a three-year average and a long-term average creates other potentially troubling consequences. Under this regime, a stream with a significant one-year spike in levels due to a particular one-time issue or problem could remain impaired long after the issue that caused the one-time spike had been corrected. An anomalycould also occur as a result of extreme weather conditions mobilizing nutrients in an unusual manner to cause a oneyear abnormal occurrence to throw off the long-term average. Such high nutrient concentrations that rendered a stream impaired in the past could preclude subsequent future nutrient reductions from demonstrating compliance with the criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3475Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

In light of the entirely new regulatory framework established by the Rule, particularly given the Rule's flaws and imprecision, determining compliance with the new criteria should be reasonably flexible. Mosaic proposes that the criteria should be deemed to be exceeded only if both the annual geometric mean is surpassed more than once in a three-year period and the long-term average of annual geometric mean values exceeds the concentration values. Mosaic proposes that footnote a to the table for lakes in 131.43(c)(1) and the table for streams in 131.43(c)(2)(i) be revised as follows: a Compliance is measured by concentration values either not exceeding the annual geometric mean more than once in a three-year period or not exceeding the long-term average of annual geometric mean values. (Duration = annual; Frequency = not to be surpassed more than one in a three year period and as a long-term average.) Mosaic observes that while the Rule measures the applicability of the criteria based on three-year and long-term geometric means, not all discharge permits are calculated using geometric means. This presents a potential ambiguity as to how EPA and the State will administer and enforce discharge permits that incorporate conditions based on these criteria. EPA should clarify that notwithstanding other provisions of State or federal law, the criteria of this Rule are to be applied using geometric means, and that the State and permittees are expected to calculate relevant permit compliance based on geometric means. Accordingly, Mosaic proposes that section 131.43(d) be revised as follows: 131.43(d)(3). Notwithstanding other provisions of state or federal law, the criteria of this section shall be applied using geometric means, as described in subsection (c), and the review of compliance with permit conditions based on these criteria will similarly be based on geometric means. Finally, the Rule as drafted is unclear regarding the data methodology and requirements applicable to determining compliance with the Rule. While Section 131.43(d)(2)(iii) appears to suggest that the requirements of the State's Impaired Waters Rule apply to compliance with the Rule, to avoid ambiguity on this point Mosaic recommends the following addition: 131.43(d)(2)(iv). Unless otherwise specifically stated in this Section, the requirements for the quantity, frequency and timing of sampling established in the State's Impaired Waters Rule, Fla. Admin. Code r. 62-303, shall also apply to sampling required to demonstrate compliance with the criteria in this Section. [63] Fla. Admin. Code r. 62-303.400(3). 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.014

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District The total nitrogen frequency exceedance criteria proposed by EPA for rivers and streams that "Concentration values are based on annual geometric mean not to be surpassed more than once in a three year period." is not a realistic metric in the Florida panhandle due to the variation in flow and nitrogen input from extensive natural flood plains.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3476Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organic nitrogen is abundant in riparian wetlands and riverine flood plains in the panhandle and typically comprises the majority of the nitrogen load during high flow events. Inclusion of a "once in a t1u-ee year period" criteria would potentially designate rivers and streams as impaired water bodies that are healthy diverse systems with natural fluctuations and pulses of nutrient loads that are beneficial to downstream waters. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.037

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County There is little support provided to justify the proposed one year in three assessment period. The evaluation process describes a "one in three year exceedance of the geometric mean as an acceptable limit." However, if the true geometric mean is at, or just below, the threshold value, and 12 observations are taken each year, the annual geometric mean will exceed the true mean nearly 50% of the time by chance. This means that the "one in three years" is likely to result in falsely declaring a water body to be impaired when in actuality it meets the criterion value. An alternative approach would be to use a statistical test to ensure that this type one error rate is controlled (e.g., 5%) . This type of statistical inference has been employed by the FDEP in its rule for violations of its dissolved oxygen criterion using the binomial test and would help to ensure that undue burdens are not imposed on water resource managers. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.176

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 9. Hypothetical total phosphorus distribution of 10000 simulated observations with a geometric mean (i.e., 0.739) based on EPA Bone Valley criterion for streams and a standard deviation of 0.15. Distribution is show as lognormal (left) and log transformed (right). Descriptive statistics are inset. See original comment letter. Therefore, the proposed evaluation strategy (i.e., a one in three year exceedance) is not internally consistent with the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria for streams based on an annual geometric mean. EPA states that " EPA has determined the this excursion frequency will not result in unacceptable effects on aquatic life as it will allow the stream ecosystem enough time to recover from an occasionally elevated year of nutrient loadings" (page 85). However, it is unclear how this level of acceptance was determined. Long-term weather patterns such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) patterns and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation typically reveal themselves over longer indiscrete periods of time rather than a single year. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.033

Author Name: Barker V.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3477Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners There is little support provided to justify the proposed one year in three assessment period. The evaluation process describes a "one in three year exceedance of the geometric mean as an acceptable limit." However, if the true geometric mean is at, or just below, the threshold value, and 12 observations are taken each year, the annual geometric mean will exceed the true mean nearly 50% of the time by chance. This means that the "one in three years" is likely to result in falsely declaring a water body to be impaired when in actuality it meets the criterion value. An alternative approach would be to use a statistical test to ensure that this type one error rate is controlled (e.g., 5%) . This type of statistical inference has been employed by the FDEP in its rule for violations of its dissolved oxygen criterion using the binomial test and would help to ensure that undue burdens are not imposed on water resource managers. 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 1355-2.001.087

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Therefore, the proposed evaluation strategy (i.e., a one in three year exceedance) is not internally consistent with the derivation of the numeric nutrient criteria for streams based on an annual geometric mean. EPA states that " EPA has determined the this excursion frequency will not result in unacceptable effects on aquatic life as it will allow the stream ecosystem enough time to recover from an occasionally elevated year of nutrient loadings" (page 85). However, it is unclear how this level of acceptance was determined. Long-term weather patterns such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) patterns and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation typically reveal themselves over longer indiscrete periods of time rather than a single year. The second expression of allowable frequency is stated as the long term arithmetic average of the annual geometric mean. However, without estimates of uncertainty being incorporated into the criterion, a shift in the long term average cannot be deemed to be different from the criterion with statistical certainty. In other words, the evaluation is unreliable without some estimate that the difference from the criterion isn't due simply to chance, especially given the small number of samples used in the calculation of each of the annual geometric means. A better approach may be to use the distribution of values over the entire evaluation period to compare against the distribution of values from the reference sites. A statistical test (e.g., the binomial test) could be used to evaluate whether the stream reach under evaluation had a significantly higher exceedance frequency of the threshold (i.e., 75th percentile value) than the reference system distribution. It is mystifying that EPA does not recognize uncertainty in either the derivation of the criteria or in the evaluation strategy for implicating a waterbody as not meeting its designated use given the enormity of the potential restoration costs which may be wasted simply due to the chance occurrences of values in violation of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3478Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1356-1.001.014

Author Name: Hayes D. Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce 2. Regarding duration and frequency criteria described in Footnote a associated with the Table on page 71, Manatee County supports the duration as the annual geometric mean, but recommends the frequency be consistent with what is suggested for lake criteria; no more than two (2) exceedences in a five-year period. Again this period of record corresponds to permit durations and provides for the normalization of extreme meteorological and hydrological conditions. 

# Comment ID 1361-1.001.007

Author Name: * * Organization: North Carolina Division of Water Quality

- The NCDWQ requests clarification on the use of the duration/frequency component "not to be surpassed more than once in three years". This is traditionally applicable to known toxicants. EPA has historically used site specific evaluations of benthos to imply that it is difficult for aquatic populations to recover from frequent toxic insults. However, it is not apparent nor scientifically expected that the same effect can be associated with nitrogen and phosphorus (which are also essential nutrients) on biological endpoints. The NCDWQ requests EPA supply scientific justification to support its determination that "this frequency of excursions will not result in unacceptable effects on aquatic life as it will allow the stream ecosystem enough time to recover from an occasionally elevated year of nutrient loadings." [Reference: EPA -HQ-OW-2009-0596, FRL-9105-1, Section III, (C) (2) (d), p. 4195] 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.019

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Comments on the Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Streams The three year time frame used to determine long-term or single violations of the criteria is inappropriate as it does not adequately represent the range of environmental conditions that occur over longer time frames. As an example, if 2005­ 2008 were used to evaluate a stream, the water quality would reflect severe drought conditions. Many urban streams within Pinellas County are perennial and monitoring results are representative of "pools" within the stream channel. The timeframe used for such evaluations needs to ensure that the period of record is reflective of representative conditions. Pinellas County disagrees with EPA and FDEP on this particular issue. 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.053

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3479Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida Fourth, as discussed above, the arithmetic mean should be used instead of the geometric mean.[3] [3] Similar to lakes, when EPA recommended nutrient criteria for streams for large parts of Florida, it recommended the arithmetic mean. EPA Office Of Water Office Of Science And Technology Health And Ecological Criteria Division. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion XII. Washington, D.C. Aug. 2000, App. C-1. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.097

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection I. Comments on Frequency and Duration Component of the Proposed Stream Criteria FDEP does not support the proposed allowable exceedance frequency of not more than once in a three year period because the variability between years for measured nutrient concentrations is significant and will result in exceedances of the standard due to natural conditions and/or the inherent variability of sampling/testing procedures. Because of the relative lack of cause-effect relationship between nutrients and biological response in streams, and the natural variability of nutrient concentrations from year to year, this would add yet another source of unjustifiable Type I error. The EPA proposed criteria are expressed as annual geometric mean values. However, it is important to consider the fact that the geometric mean benchmark values are measures of central tendency used to represent a much wider range of variability both above and below these geometric means. This variability occurs both due to natural factors (climactic and geologic) and factors inherent in sampling and testing procedures. Given this variability, minimally disturbed waterbodies with long-term (multiyear) average nutrient concentrations fully achieving the magnitude of EPA's proposed in-stream criteria will exceed the 1 out of 3 year annual geometric mean criteria with some frequency. The frequency of exceedance will be a function of both the long-term average and variability (inter-annual and within year variance). The closer a stream's long-term average concentration is to the magnitude of the criterion, the more frequently it will exceed the annual geometric mean, such that a waterbody with a long term average approaching the magnitude of the criterion will be expected to have a fifty percent exceedance frequency of the annual geometric mean. Inclusion of a return frequency test, such as the proposed no more than one exceedance in a three year period, will require a long-term average well below the criteria to consistently achieve the criteria two thirds of the time. Because of the natural variability inherent in their nutrient regimes (driven largely by hydrology), FDEP believes that stream criteria should be expressed as a 5 year arithmetic mean of the annual geometric means ( which should not be surpassed during any 5-year period). This concept is consistent with (although slightly shorter than) the assessment period approved by EPA as part of the Impaired Waters Rule. Further, NPDES permits are reviewed on a 5 year cycle, and based upon site-specific modeling, permits could be written to assure that a discharge will not exceed the criteria, including during critical conditions.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3480Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

FDEP recommends the following language revision: Concentration values are based on the arithmetic average of annual geometric means for a 5 year period not to be surpassed more than once in any five three-year period. In addition, the long-term average of annual geometric mean values shall not surpass the listed concentration values. (Duration = annual; Frequency = not to be exceeded more than once during in a fiveyear period or as a long-term five year average). 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.124

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(2)(d) Proposed Criteria: Duration and Frequency Statement: The Agency requests comment on these proposed duration and frequency components of the stream numeric nutrient criteria. Comment: In general, the duration and frequency criteria should be similar, if not exactly the same as lakes. It is recommended that FDEP should use their standard assessment periods to assess the long-term average values. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.092

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(2)(d) Proposed Criteria: Duration and Frequency Statement: The Agency requests comment on these proposed duration and frequency components of the stream numeric nutrient criteria. Comment: In general, the duration and frequency criteria need to be statistically consistent with the methods used to define the criteria. Based upon the information provided this does not seem to be the case. Additionally, the sampling requirements to establish impairment need to be sufficient to assure that the calculated geomean or other criteria utilized is reflective the system true mean and not based upon statistical assessment of limited data.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3481Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.046

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Positive Aspects of the Florida Proposal In the proposal, EPA has included several concepts that could provide additional flexibility in the implementation of nutrient criteria. NACWA welcomes many of these concepts, but believes that implementation flexibility alone cannot compensate for flaws in the criteria development methodology. NACWA believes that new approaches to developing and expressing nutrient criteria are needed in addition to these implementation aides.

• In the proposal, the instream protection value criteria for rivers and streams are based on an annual geometric mean. EPA proposes two expressions of allowable excursion frequency - a no more than one-in- three-years excursion frequency for the annual geometric mean and a not to exceed value for the long-term arithmetic average of annual geometric means equal to the criterion-magnitude concentration. NACWA generally supports this approach as it better reflects the behavior and potential impacts of nutrients in the water environment and believes that similar flexibility should be extended to the implementation of nutrient limits in CWA permits (e.g., annual averaging periods for permit limit compliance). 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.048

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies With the exception of ammonia, nutrients have not been shown to have an immediate impact on aquatic life, and in fact the impacts normally seen as a result of nutrients are on a watershed scale. The algal response to nutrients tends to occur over a longer period of time, which makes longer averaging periods appropriate. Furthermore, it has also been shown that the lower the treatment goals are for nutrients, the greater the day-to-day variability in the biological processes. Studies of some of the most advanced wastewater treatment plants in the United States have shown ratios of reliable performance to median performance of 1.26 to 6 (95th/50th percentile ranges). Use of a geometric mean, rather than an arithmetic mean, addresses the high variance in data sets, similar to the approach historically taken with bacteria standards to protect recreation uses. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.109

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(2)(d) Proposed Criteria: Duration and Frequency

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3482Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Statement: The Agency requests comment on these proposed duration and frequency components of the stream numeric nutrient criteria. Comment: In general, the duration and frequency criteria need to be statistically consistent with the methods used to define the criteria. Based upon the information provided this does not seem to be the case. Additionally, the sampling requirements to establish impairment need to be sufficient to assure that the calculated geomean or other criteria utilized is reflective the system true mean and not based upon statistical assessment of limited data. 

# Comment ID 2018-6.001.003

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa 14. There is little support provided to justify the proposed one year in three assessment period. The evaluation process describes a "one in three year exceedance of the geometric mean as an acceptable limit." However, if the true geometric mean is at, or just below, the threshold value, and 12 observations are taken each year, the annual geometric mean will exceed the true mean nearly 50% of the time by chance. This means that the "one in three years" is likely to result in falsely declaring a water body to be impaired when in actuality it meets the criterion value. 15. An alternative approach would be to use a statistical test to ensure that this type one error rate is controlled (e.g., 5%). This type of statistical inference has been employed by the FDEP in its rule for violations of its dissolved oxygen criterion using the binomial test and would help to ensure that undue burdens are not imposed on water resource managers. 

# Comment ID 2018-6.001.015

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa 32. The majority of reference streams used in the approach are located in the Peninsula and Panhandle regions with only two sites in the Bone Valley and very few overall in southwest Florida. The evaluation strategy for Florida streams is purported to be established based on three aspects of the distribution ofTN and TP; magnitude, duration and frequency. These components of the evaluation are appropriate as nutrient dynamics in streams are related to hydrologic events. The components expressed above are therefore established with the recognition that there is spatial and temporal variability in nutrient dynamics. Unfortunately, an annual geometric mean is a statistic that is only representative of a typical value for a stream if sufficient data are used in the calculation of the geometric mean. Typically, nutrient concentrations in Florida streams are collected either quarterly or, at best, monthly. Rarely are there cases where the sampling frequency is more frequent than monthly sampling at a particular station. This will lead to some uncertainty in the estimate of the true mean. 33. Given the small sample size used to calculate the geometric mean, there is likely a large degree of uncertainty associated with the true mean that is not accounted for in the evaluation strategy for the numeric nutrient criteria. This means it is likely that the criterion value will be exceeded by chance. The complexities of developing effective numeric

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3483Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams nutrient criteria relies not only on the estimation of the number itself, but in having a flexible implementation strategy that allows for the recognition of the inherent differences among streams in their response to nutrient inputs. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.020

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 2.1.2.2 Determining Exceedances The agency's proposed method to determine a violation of the proposed instream values are not logically related to the derivation of the criteria, effectively reducing instrearn compliance concentrations to well below the proposed criteria. Under EPA's proposed rule, the annual geometric mean concentration of TP or TN cannot exceed the criterion more than once in a three-year period. However, the criteria were not derived from annual geometric means, and EPA provides no explanation as to why it would test compliance by looking at an annual geometric mean when the criterion was derived using an undefined long-term geometric mean.[17] The result is like comparing two routes on a roadmap applying different scales. Additionally, the long-term arithmetic mean of the geometric means cannot exceed the criteria. Not only does EPA not define "long-term," but arithmetic means were not used to derive the criteria. [18] Again, the scale on the roadmap for deriving the criteria does not comport with the scale on the roadmap for implementing the criteria. These errors are exacerbated by the fact that geometric means being manipulated may have been based on only two measurements or a single data point taking the place of a geometric mean at a limited number of sites per nutrient region. [17] Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and Springs/Clear Streams, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, March 12, 2010, at page 40. [18] The Florida DEP noted that 75% of the data used to derive the criteria were collected in 2005 and 2006 biasing any attempt to establish a long-term mean concentration ofTP or TN. Additionally, EPA failed to assess whether the data were seasonally biased. Review ofProposed Criteria for the Protection ofStreams and Springs/Clear Streams, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, March 12, 20 I0, at page 41. 

# Response Comment IDs: 1786-1.001.046, 1786-1.048, 2018-6.001.015 Response: EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the Stream Condition Index (SCI) reference site selection method was arbitrary and simplistic. EPA has considered this and other comments. EPA notes that the reference set of streams used to derive the final criteria in the rule are different than

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3484Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the set of streams used to derive the proposed criteria, except in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). Other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference set of streams, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream set because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. As to the SCI reference site selection method, simplicity in and of itself is not generally an argument against a reference site selection method. The development of the SCI, used as the principal screening tool for the “biologically healthy” reference population, was not a simple process. The SCI incorporates a multitude of information in it, including rules for selecting least disturbed reference sites that were used to develop, score, and identify nutrient thresholds. Moreover, EPA disagrees that the method of selecting reference sites based on an SCI screen was arbitrary. EPA detailed in the TSD the lengthy, involved, scientifically defensible, and transparent process used to generate the multimetric index; a process that is based on well established EPA guidance and scientific principles. The bioassessment and bioindicator literature underlying the SCI is both broad and comprehensive. Similarly, the selection of an SCI threshold of 40 was not arbitrary, but rather based on two rigorous statistical analyses detailed in the TSD. EPA considered a variety of potential SCI endpoints, as detailed in the TSD, and concluded that a value of 40 was most defensible. EPA wanted to develop a reference selection process that was both defensible and clear. The process EPA proposed depended on easily replicable bioassessment results that are clear to identify and easy to use in selecting sites. The SCI also clearly responds to stressors, including nutrient stressors, as detailed in the TSD and citations therein. Other comments opposed the use of the SCI alone for site selection, arguing that natural conditions can influence the SCI tool performance including physical-chemical parameters such as velocity, conductivity, pH, temp, and DO which can act as natural stressors. Natural variability does influence SCI scores, as reflected in the variability around minimally impacted reference sites SCI scores. EPA considered the influence of this natural variability explicitly in the selection of the SCI threshold and this consideration is described in great detail in the TSD appendices B-13 and B-14. There is also a great deal of information about human disturbance incorporated into the SCI score. For example, the development of the SCI included responsiveness to human disturbance gradients, including the Land Disturbance Index (LDI), in the selection, scoring, and threshold selection processes. So, the SCI scores inherently include considerations of human disturbance, and the selection of the threshold incorporates considerations of least-disturbed conditions. Lastly, the SCI was not used alone for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites. Other comments disagreed with the use of low dissolved oxygen as a basis to reject candidate reference sites because low oxygen may be a natural occurrence. EPA considered this and other comments. EPA retained the removal of sites listed by FDEP as impaired for dissolved oxygen for both the modified benchmark and SCI reference populations as detailed in the final rule and TSD. EPA rejected sites because of low dissolved oxygen where those sites had been included by FDEP on Florida’s list of impaired waters, pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA. FDEP is not required to include waterbodies on the section 303(d) list where it demonstrates that concentrations of dissolved oxygen were measured below the numeric criteria due solely to natural conditions. Without such a demonstration, EPA must rely on FDEP’s identification of impairment when considering whether to select candidate reference sites. Concerns related to FDEP’s section 303(d) list should be addressed through the 303(d) listing process, which is independent of the nutrient criteria development process. Similarly, any comments about the appropriateness of Florida’s dissolved oxygen criteria should be addressed in FDEP’s criterion development process and not the nutrient criteria process. Some comments objected to the rejection of WBIDs listed as impaired for mercury or coliforms. EPA did not exclude WBIDs that were listed as impaired for any constituent other than dissolved oxygen and nutrients. This is detailed in the draft and final rule and TSD.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3485Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Lastly, with regards to reference site selection, some comments sought clarification on the SCI reference approach. EPA provided a lengthy and clear description of the straightforward process used for selecting the SCI Population reference sites, which included a detailed description of the development of the SCI itself, in section 2 of the proposed rule TSD. 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. A number of comments disagreed with the sufficiency of data used by EPA. EPA considered these and other comments. The first assertion was that EPA used limited data. EPA considered all available data of defensible quality. For both the proposed and final rule for streams, this included screening and evaluating water chemistry data from more than 11,000 samples from over 6,000 sites statewide, and evaluating biological data of more than 2,000 samples from over 1,100 streams. A review of these data is included in the TSD and data files were also made available to the public. A second assertion was that data were collected during a fewclimatically abnormal years. It is unclear what is meant by climatically abnormal as Florida is typified by highly variable interannual climatic conditions (see figure below with annual precipitation data). Biological data were collected from 2004 to 2008, a period which, according to precipitation data from the Florida Climate Center, included years with annual average precipitationabove the 75th percentile of long-term average annual precipitation, years with annual averages below the 25th percentile of longterm average annual precipitation, and years with annual averages equal to the long-term average annual precipitation. Chemistry data were collected during an even longer period encompassing a similarly balanced number of variable climatic conditions. EPA concludes from this that the data used to derive numeric nutrient criteria incorporate the full range of hydrologic conditions representative of the variability typically observed in Florida including high, low and average conditions and that the range of conditions represented by the data actually reinforces the defensibility of the resultant criteria. There were comments that weighting or averaging was needed when using data from multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. In response to this and similar comments, EPA considered the autocorrelation issues involved in using site averages for sites located closely in space and explored the use of WBID averages. For the final rule, EPA has decided to use WBID averages instead of site averages, which reduces the effect of spatial autocorrelation. The reanalysis and justification are detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. The

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3486Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams supplemental notice included analyses of WBID based spatial units. Lastly, EPA received comment that the data used were of varied detection limits and methodologies and included unqualified data. All the data used were verified by FDEPs approved Data Useability requirements as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA received several comments that disagreed with the criteria determination process using the reference condition approach. EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s Benchmark Reference Approach, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream approach because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. The first comment within this general topic was that use of the upper bound of the distribution for “healthy” streams compromises the criteria. EPA considered several options for percentiles and incorporated the concern reflected in this comment into its consideration of which percentiles to use in the final rule. For the final rule, other than the West Central Region, EPA is using the 90th percentile of the modified Benchmark Approach WBID averages within each region because of EPA’s confidence in the screening of that reference population. In the West Central, EPA is using the 75th percentile of SCI approach WBID averages because of reduced confidence in the quality of sites within that population and the reduced sample size. The details of this decision and analysis are included in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA concluded that a reference population typified by either healthy biological conditions or least-disturbed conditions provides EPA with the confidence that these are least-disturbed sites and that the use of upper bound percentiles from this population to establish the criteria was acceptable. A second related comment was that no analysis had been provided to support the 75th percentile as an accurate statistic for defining the distribution of reference sites and that its selection was a policy and not technical decision. As stated above, in response to this and similar comments, EPA revisited the percentile selection process and decided on the percentiles indicated above. EPA defends the selection of an upper percentile of biologically healthy and least disturbed populations of values as technically defensible for protecting streams. Again, EPA provided a detailed argument of why that is so, related to the fact that the nutrient dynamics of such sites are, implicitly, consistent with that found in sites supporting designated uses. EPA also affirms that the 75th percentile is indeed a statistical characteristic of a population distribution. EPA agrees that the final decision to use a specific percentile does include the exercise of judgment, but that judgment is not arbitrary but rather is based on a consideration of risk to uses based on the degree to which the basis population represents conditions expected to support uses and a consideration of errors in making use attainment decisions based on the resultant values. This judgment is informed by technical information as well. Lastly, some comments asked why a 90th percentile was not used, as suggested by FDEP. Again, EPA has finalized streams criteria for most regions using the 90th percentile when there are sufficient data available to provide EPA with enough confidence that the reference site population is least-disturbed, and closely reflective of minimally impacted conditions. In the West Central Region, where fewer reference sites are available, EPA has continued to set the criteria at the 75th percentile because there is less confidence that these sites reflect least-disturbed conditions. In the absence of a clear, un-confounded stressor-response relationship, EPA elected to use a reference condition approach to develop protective numeric criteria. For the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3487Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as noted above for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified benchmark population of reference sites.

Comment IDs: 1352-1.001.037, 2018-6.001.003 Response: EPA also received comments related to implementation. The first theme within these comments was related to assessment errors and conflicts between biological conditions and impairment decisions which could result from EPA’s criteria. EPA has considered all these and other comments related to this first theme. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the Benchmark Approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula regions. This modified Benchmark Approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed landcover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. Because EPA has relied on this more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified in that region. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. In the same vein, EPA received comments arguing that, under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, some reference or pristine waterbodies would be deemed to be impaired. Some of this perception seems to have been the result of analyses by FDEP and others of the number of FDEP reference waterbodies that would not meet the proposed criteria. First, there are likely no pristine waterbodies, defined as that reflecting the original pre-human state, left in Florida. The impacts of centuries of human activity on

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3488Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere have made the existence of pristine conditions essentially extinct in Florida. Even Florida’s original benchmark site population, presented as pristine, contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor, however, EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered that several of FDEP’s benchmark reference sites were included on the State’s section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various reasons, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairments. The salient point is that any conclusion of the number of “reference” waterbodies that would be deemed impaired depends on a careful and accurate depiction of reference and the conclusions using the population originally presented by FDEP presented issues that were problematic. EPA is using a modified Benchmark Approach for its final criteria that addresses many of these problematic screening issues. That modified approach is described above and in more detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. Also related to this first theme, EPA disagrees with comments that assert impairment of reference sites based on error rate analyses described in the comments. EPA views the type of analysis suggested in the comment as inappropriate and flawed because these analyses proposed calculating error rates using traditional statistical assumptions about attainment and non-attainment. EPA observed that there are no true independent “attaining” or “non-attaining” populations upon which to test the criteria because criteria do not yet exist, therefore these tests are invalid. The concept of false positive and false negative rates is predicated on the assumption that an independent assessment of the attainment and non-attainment is available. For example, to estimate the false positive rate of a diagnostic test, physicians observe whether patients actually contract a disease. In the case of nutrient criteria, the reference distribution is the only means of defining attainment and non-attainment. Hence, any discussion of false positive or false negative rates is not relevant. Further under this first implementation theme, some commenters argued that some streams would meet the criteria yet still display unhealthy biological conditions and that, therefore, implementation of the criteria should require biological validation that waters attaining the criteria are in fact healthy. EPA agrees it is possible that some streams would meet nutrient criteria yet still display unhealthy conditions but disagrees with the reasons why and the implication. There are many stressors that threaten aquatic life. Nutrient criteria are meant to protect against the effect of elevated nutrients on aquatic life. The criteria cannot control for other stressors which may also result in unhealthy conditions. Moreover, it may be that some streams meet the criteria and still contain unhealthy conditions due to nutrients. The approach for criteria derivation used here could potentially result in nutrient impacts below the proposed criteria. EPA has attempted to minimize that risk with the approach used in the final rule based on stringent criteria, biological screens, and higher percentiles but it is not a guarantee that our generally applicable criteria are most appropriate for every individual stream. In a case where the proposed criteria are proven not to protect aquatic life from nutrient effects, then site-specific criteria can be set to provide more protective criteria. 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. Requiring independent validation of biological impairment would, ostensibly, invalidate the need for protective nutrient criterion to protect aquatic life. The last argument under the first implementation theme was that EPA’s proposed approach for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria assumed elevated nutrient levels are responsible for impairment when they may not be and/or that it is impossible to determine if designated uses will be protected. EPA disagrees that it is impossible to determine that elevated concentrations will

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3489Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams impair uses or if uses will be protected by setting the final criteria. 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 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 decided to use the reference approach described based on the specific SCI approach in the West Central Region and the modified Benchmark Approach in all other regions, following EPA peer reviewed guidance for deriving criteria. Such an approach concludes that concentrations observed in least disturbed reference populations known to be unimpaired by nutrient impacts would continue to protect designated uses from nutrient impacts. The basis for this is articulated in the EPA nutrient criteria guidance documents. As noted above, the final rule provides flexibility for the any entity to submit SSAC for waterbodies where additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The second comment theme under implementation relates to the cost of regulation. Commenters argue that local and state governments will spend a lot of money to come up with site-specific criteria within the very broad regions established to set the proposed criteria and that this will squander resources that could be used to correct true impairments. EPA disagrees and believes the resultant criteria will be sufficiently protective across the broad NWRs and the criteria will identify true impairments, obviating the need for site-specific criteria except where necessary. Indeed, EPA expended great effort with the classification element to minimize the need for site-specific criteria. Where local and state government determines a SSAC is necessary to most appropriately address specific waterbodies, the development of those SSAC should cost roughly the same as what it would cost to develop the appropriate limits under the narrative nutrient criteria. The extent of impacts due to nutrient enrichment in Florida and across the nation is substantial. EPA agrees that the efforts to solve this pressing problem will involve an investment of resources. But EPA hopes all parties agree such investments are necessary to protect our vital resources from the pervasive effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution that is clearly evident in Florida and across the country.

Comment IDs: 1217-2.001.022, 1288-1.001.014, 1352-1.001.037, 1352-1.001.176, 1355-2.001.033, 1355-2.001.087, 1356­ 1.001.014, 1361-1.001.007, 1431-1.001.019, 1482-1.001.053, 1671-3.001.097, 1761-3.001.124, 1777-2.001.092, 1805-3.001.109, 2018-6.001.003, 2233-1.001.020 Response: EPA received several comments related to compliance issues with the proposed criteria. The first theme related to the central tendency measure considered, spatial scale of averaging, and the frequency and duration elements. The first set of comments under this theme related to the geometric mean. Some commenters argued that annual geometric means require sufficient data to be accurately representative and that monthly samples will lead to uncertainty in the estimate of the true mean.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3490Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams EPA has considered this and other comments in reevaluating the use of geometric means and the minimum observations necessary for developing mean concentration estimates. EPA developed the criteria in a manner consistent with the data available. The geometric mean was deemed to be appropriate given the log-normal statistical behavior of nutrient data within and across sites. With regards to the sample frequency for compliance, FDEP has developed a process for evaluating consistency with numeric criteria, including geometric mean criteria. EPA expects FDEP to apply such processes to the nutrient criteria established here. The evaluation of the degree of chance involved in incorrectly concluding an exceedance when it does not exist has to be equally balanced by the risk of not identifying an exceedance when it does exist. EPA has considered different options and concluded that the annual geometric mean is the most appropriate representation and is using this in the final rule. EPA is not establishing any requirements regarding sampling frequency. FDEP can make any appropriate changes to their sampling standard operating procedures. The second set of comments under this theme suggested that averaging multiple sites within a stream reach to evaluate compliance at a downstream node would be most appropriate because of concerns about autocorrelation. EPA agrees and considered this issue in reevaluating the spatial scale over which averaging occurred. For the final rule EPA is using a WBID-based spatial scale, like that developed for the Benchmark Approach advocated by FDEP and considered by EPA. The advantage to the WBID average approach is avoiding issues of spatial autocorrelation. A disadvantage of this approach is the need to protect entire stream sections from nutrient impairments; the averaging approach recommended could result in averaging potentially elevated downstream reaches with un-impacted upstream reach concentrations among other potential scenarios. EPA determined the advantages outweighed the disadvantages and selected WBID averages as the appropriate scale for final criteria in all the regions. A third element of this first theme was that medians should be used instead of geometric means. EPA considered medians as a possible option, and selected geometric means for the final rule because of the effects of sample size on median estimation. It is worth noting that medians are similar to geometric means when sample sizes are large for log-normally distributed variables. A fourth set of comments suggested that criteria be expressed as 5 year arithmetic means of annual geometric means, which would be consistent with assessment periods approved by EPA for the IWR and the 5 year NPDES cycle. EPA considered many averaging options when deciding on the final duration element of the stream criteria. An issue of concern for EPA is the lag time between detecting and responding to potential nutrient enrichment issues which would occur with long evaluation periods. This concern has to be weighed against the need for comprehensive treatment of data and identification of impairment. Some commenters argued that a 3 year rolling average of geometric means would be better than one-in-three year approaches while others argued that a three year rolling average approach would allow too much influence from one year’s data. There is an assumption that streams are resilient to disturbance and that one year’s exceedance is allowable, but allowing longer duration exceedances without action may not be supported scientifically as discussed in the proposed and final rule and proposed and final rule TSD. EPA chose to use an annual average not to be exceeded more than once in 3 years for the final rule based on this and similar comments. This duration was considered appropriate because of the generally chronic manifestation of nutrient effects on flowing systems. The no more than one in three year frequency element was considered appropriate because of the relative resilience of flowing water systems and evidence of recovery times expected of disturbed streams as outlined in the final rule TSD. The second theme under the general compliance question is that EPA should add guidance regarding sampling relative to stream flows and a load component and, similarly, that criteria should not apply during extreme weather events. EPA has considered these issues and concludes that compliance monitoring should be done in a manner consistent with the way in which data were collected to derive the criteria. FDEP has monitoring guidelines used for evaluating compliance with water quality criteria. EPA is not establishing any requirements regarding sampling frequency. FDEP can make any appropriate changes to their sampling standard operating procedures.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3491Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams A third theme under the compliance issue was that concentrations of TN and TP required to meet the 1-in-3 year excursion frequency are lower than the actual criteria proposed. EPA has considered this comment and has reviewed the effect of frequencies on effective concentrations. This issue applies no less to nutrients than any water quality criterion with a 1-in-3 year frequency requirement and principally affects only streams whose average annual concentration is right at the criterion. The goal should be to maintain streams below this concentration to assure protection. A final comment theme requested information on how compliance will be determined within the first three years of the rule. EPA believes compliance with the proposed criteria will be conducted under the same strategy FDEP employs for evaluating compliance with all water quality criteria currently and that proposed numeric nutrient criteria would be evaluated as an additional criterion for consideration by the state in their CWA section 305(b) and 303(d) reporting cycles.

References: 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. Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542. Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429. Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643-657. Cross, W.F., J.B. Wallace, A. D. Rosemond, and S. L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565. Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427. Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158. Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477. 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 production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3492Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368. Gaiser, E.E., J.C. Trexler, J.H. Richards, D.L.Childers, D. Lee, A.L. Edwards, L.J. Scinto, K. Jayachandran, G.B. Noe, and R.D. Jones, 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723. Lohman, K.,J. R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23. Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835. Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117. Notestein, S.K., T.K. Frazer, M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G. S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386. Rosemond, A.D., P.J. Mulholland, and J.W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J.L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289. Slavik, K., B.J. Peterson, L.A. Deegan, W. B. Bowden, A.E. Hershey, J.E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939-954. Stelzer, R.S. and G.A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367.: 

# III.C.2.Q.4 - METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING EPA’S PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR STREAMS QUESTION 4

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3493Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1217-2.001.013

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 8. Mosaic supports EPA's use of geometric means to determine whether waterbodies comply with the criteria for lakes and streams. However, in the proposed Rule a waterbody would fail to meet the criteria if it exceeds an IPV in one year out of three or if that waterbody exceeds the IPV as measured by its long term average values. This "either-or" approach to violating the criteria is inappropriate in light of the Rule's imprecision and its unproven scientific thesis. Mosaic proposes instead that a waterbody, or a discharge, be deemed out of compliance with the criteria only if stream values or discharges exceed the criteria both on a rolling three-year average and on a long term average of annual geometric means. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.077

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Finally, allowing the criteria to be exceeded on a one-in-three year basis is not protective of stream ecosystem conditions. This amounts to saying that conditions are satisfactory in streams that violate the criteria one-third of the time. The EPD is not aware of any other water quality criteria that allow water bodies to exceed the criterion value for such a large fraction of the time. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.125

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Statement: EPA requests comment on alternative duration and frequency expressions that might be considered protective, including (1) a criterion-duration expressed as a monthly average or geometric mean, (2) a criterion-frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration every year, (3) a criterion- frequency expressed as meetingallowable magnitude and duration in more than half the years of a given assessment period, and (4) a criterionfrequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration as a long-term average only. Comment:
1. A monthly average would likely require too much sampling effort

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3494Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

2. Annual averaging does not take into account drought years (and other weather phenomena)
3. This seems reasonable, as long as enough representative data from each year is available.
4. Long-term averaging is difficult due to extreme annual variations that can occur. Wet/normal/dry year variability needs to be incorporated. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.093

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Statement: EPA requests comment on alternative duration and frequency expressions that might be considered protective, including (1) a criterion-duration expressed as a monthly average or geometric mean, (2) a criterion-frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration every year, (3) a criterion- frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration in more than half the years of a given assessment period, and (4) a criterion- frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration as a long-term average only. Comment: 1. A monthly average would likely require too much sampling effort and not allow for natural levels of variability. 2. Annual averaging does not take into account drought years (and other weather phenomena) 3. This seems reasonable, as long as enough representative data from each year is available. Once again the assessment needs to statistically match the method used to define the criteria. 4. Long-term averaging is difficult due to extreme annual variations that can occur. Wet/normal/dry year variability, hurricanes, etc can through one year of data skew the results. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.035

Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior Stream duration and frequency criteria are "no-more-than-one-in-three-years excursion frequency for the annual geometric mean criteria for lakes" and "long-term arithmetic average of annual geometric means not to exceed the criterion-magnitude concentration" Because streams are at issue, the criterion for lakes seems out of place. Also, the no-more-than-one-in-three-years excursion frequency implies a two-year interval before establishing noncompliance. This is a long time. We recommend that EPA suggest simple methods to predict noncompliance early in the two-year interval. For example, comparison of data from the same month or season in succeeding years may indicate trends and allow for remedial action earlier than year's end.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3495Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.110

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Statement: EPA requests comment on alternative duration and frequency expressions that might be considered protective, including (1) a criterion-duration expressed as a monthly average or geometric mean, (2) a criterion-frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration every year, (3) a criterion-frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration in more than half the years of a given assessment period, and (4) a criterion- frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration as a long-term average only. Comment: 1.A monthly average would likely require too much sampling effort and not allow for natural levels of variability. 2.Annual averaging does not take into account drought years (and other weather phenomena) 3.This seems reasonable, as long as enough representative data from each year is available. Once again the assessment needs to statistically match the method used to define the criteria. 4.Long-term averaging is difficult due to extreme annual variations that can occur. Wet/normal/dry year variability, hurricanes, etc can through one year of data skew the results.



# Comment ID 1834-4.001.036

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The EPA requested comment on various alternative duration and frequency tests. Of all the alternatives presented, only the criterion-frequency expressed as meeting allowable magnitude and duration in more than half the years of a given assessment period produced statistically reasonable false positive rates. Of course, the assessment period must be for a reasonable amount, such as requiring no more than three exceedences out of seven years. However when this alternative is combined with other tests, the false positive rate will increase. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.030

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 20.SWFWMD supports USEPA's no-more-than-once-in-three-year excursion frequency for rivers and streams, but suggests that the statistical distribution of annual geometric mean values should be taken into consideration when establishing the magnitudes of these criteria (page 4195, proposed rule). An analysis by FDEP concluded that rivers

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3496Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams and streams would have to achieve annual geometric means that are less than the proposed criteria for TN and TP in order to meet the standards for these criteria two-thirds of the time. For this reason, the effective concentrations of TN and TP required to meet the no-more-than-once-in-three-year excursion frequency are lower than the actual concentrations criteria proposed by USEPA. Therefore, USEPA should consider statistical distributions of total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations when establishing the magnitudes of these criteria . 

# Response Comment IDs: 1834-4.001.036, 1761-3.001.125, 1805-3.001.110, 1836.001.030, 1794-1.001.035, 1777-2.001.093, 1715-3.001.077, 1217-2.001.013 Response: EPA thanks the public for their comments related to this section regarding methodology for deriving the proposed stream criteria. This section proposed four alternative frequency/duration elements for which EPA sought comment. With regards to the first, related to a monthly average, several comments felt that such duration would be too difficult to implement due to sampling requirements (1761-3.001.125 and 1777-2.001.093). EPA appreciates this input and has considered it when making the decision not to set the final frequency and duration as monthly averages but as an annual geometric mean not to be exceeded more than once in three years. The second alternative presented was an annual concentration not to be exceeded. Several comments indicated that an annual average did not take into account hydrologic variability (1761-3.001.125, 1777-2.001.093, and 1805-3.001.029). EPA disagrees. Setting an annual average does not mean that hydrologic/climactic variability is not incorporated into the criterion. The selected annual average criterion value to be employed could be based on and/or be derived from long-term annual averages that incorporate that variability into the subsequent criterion derivation. The resultant criterion value, in order to incorporate that variability, would likely not be the long-term average value, but some function of those long-term averages that allows for annual variability (e.g., an upper percentile of the distribution of annual averages that include naturally variable years). The third alternative presented was a frequency component of 50% of the years. Many commenters approved of this alternative (1761­ 3.001.125, 1777-2.001.093, 1805-3.001.029, and 1834-4.001.036). Some commenters, however, argued that the 50% frequency interpretation resulted in lower false positive rates than a 1-in-3 year frequency (1834-4.001.036). EPA disagrees with this interpretation for a variety of reasons. Principally, false positive and false negative error rates are not appropriate ways to evaluate criteria derived using the approach used to derive these criteria. The idea of a false positive rate (saying a reference site is impaired) assumes one has independent verification of the test result. For example, to estimate the false positive rate of a diagnostic test, physicians observe whether patients actually contract a disease. In the case of nutrient criteria, the reference distribution is the only means of defining attainment and non-attainment. Hence, any discussion of false positive or false negative rates is not relevant. Moreover, the assumption that FDEP reference sites represent “pristine” conditions or a control population for the purposes of criteria development is incorrect. Therefore, using that population as the basis for comparison in evaluating error rates is improper. The last alternative presented was the use of a long-term average only criterion not to be exceeded. Several authors (1761­ 3.001.125, 1777-2.001.093, 1805-3.001.110 and 1805-3.001.029) felt that long-term averages would incorporate too much hydrologic variability and should not be considered. EPA reconsidered the duration element of the criteria and, for the final rule, is using an annual geometric mean not to be exceeded more than once in three years and is not considering longer-term averages. One commenter (1836.001.030) also felt that the actual concentration to be met based on 1-in-3 year frequency would be different than the magnitude. EPA does not consider this effect any different than for any other criteria expressed as a 1-in-3 year frequency and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3497Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams affirms that EPA did, indeed, use statistical distributions to establish the magnitudes developed for the proposed and final rules. Other authors, in replying to this section, presented comments on the 1-in-3 year frequency. First, one author felt that rolling three year and long-term average arithmetic means should be used (1715-3.001.077, 1794-1.001.035, 1217-2.001.013). EPA disagrees and will be using geometric means and not arithmetic means. Nutrient data are log-normally distributed and calculations of percentiles rely on normally distributed variables, therefore arithmetic means are inappropriate. Rolling, long-term averages will not be used due to concern over the selection of an appropriate definition of long-term, inconsistencies with other criteria frequencies, and consistencies with assessment cycles. EPA chose to use an annual average not to be exceeded more than once in three years for the final rule based on this and similar comments. This duration was considered appropriate because of the generally more chronic manifestation of nutrient effects on flowing systems. The 1-in-3 year frequency element was considered appropriate because of the relative resilience of flowing water systems and evidence of recovery times expected of disturbed streams as outlined in the final rule TSD. Criterion frequencies in streams have used 1-in-3 year bases of annual averages for some time based on previous evidence indicating response and recovery times of stream systems to disturbance (Stephan, C.E., et al. 1985. Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses; Report No. PB85­ 227049, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.). EPA argues, as well, that this consistency with existing criteria recommendations should also make implementation and assessment consistent with existing similar efforts. Several of the comments related to the four alternatives in section III.C.2.d were identical (1761-3.001.125, 1777-2.001.093, 1836.001.030 and 1805-3.001.029) and supported the EPA position. EPA appreciates the comments therein and agrees that a monthly average would require too much effort, that an annual average never to be exceeded does not take into account inter-annual hydrologic variability, that an annual exceedance requiring 50% of the years would also be acceptable, and that long-term averages would be difficult to manage. 

# III.C.2.Q.5 - METHODOLOGY FOR DERIVING EPA’S PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR STREAMS QUESTION 5 Comment ID 1352-1.001.177

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County The second expression of allowable frequency is stated as the long term arithmetic average of the annual geometric mean. However, without estimates of uncertainty being incorporated into the criterion, a shift in the long term average cannot be deemed to be different from the criterion with statistical certainty. In other words, the evaluation is unreliable without some estimate that the difference from the criterion isn't due simply to chance, especially given the small number of samples used in the calculation of each of the annual geometric means. A better approach may be to use the distribution of values over the entire evaluation period to compare against the distribution of values from the reference sites. A statistical test (e.g., the binomial test) could be used to evaluate whether the stream reach under evaluation had a significantly higher exceedance frequency of the threshold (i.e., 75th percentile value) than the reference system distribution. It is mystifying that EPA does not recognize uncertainty in either the derivation of the criteria or in the evaluation strategy for implicating a waterbody as not meeting its designated use given the enormity of the potential

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3498Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams restoration costs which may be wasted simply due to the chance occurrences of values in violation of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.126

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Statement: EPA further requests comment on whether an expression of the criteria in terms of an arithmetic average of annual geometric mean values based on rolling three-year periods of time would also be protective of the designated use. Comment: The primary issue is that the method utilized to define the criteria is consistent with the method used for the statistics of evaluating the stations. At present for the stream analyses there are some inconsistencies that have been pointed out previously. The use of the rolling average for the 3-year period would allow too much influence from one year period to propogate, the violation frequency for the annuals is sufficient to be protective, there is not a need to add additional criteria. 

# Comment ID 1774.001.018

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida Comments on Frequency and Duration Component of the Proposed Stream Criteria EPA asked for comments on whether an expression of the numeric nutrient criteria in terms of an arithmetic average of annual geometric mean values based on a rolling three-year periods of time would also be protective of the designated uses. Using nutrient water quality data collected from sampling locations on Deseret Ranches we have examined the patterns of compliance that result from using the proposed no-more-than-one-in-three-years excursion frequency to using the three-year rolling average of the annual geometric mean. We believe that the three-year rolling average approach might provide a measure that is more easily understood and might be inherently better at indicating developing trends for water quality managers. We believe that using the three-year rolling average approach may ultimately be more protective of the designated uses because it may foster better and more timely water quality management decisions by the regulated community. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.094

Author Name: Blanchard B.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3499Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Statement: EPA further requests comment on whether an expression of the criteria in terms of an arithmetic average of annual geometric mean values based on rolling three-year periods of time would also be protective of the designated use. Comment: The primary issue is that the method utilized to define the criteria is consistent with the method used for the statistics of evaluating the stations. At present for the stream analyses there are some inconsistencies that have been pointed out previously. The use of the rolling average for the 3-year period would allow too much influence from one year period to propogate, the violation frequency for the annuals is sufficient to be protective, and allows for some anomalous years to occur, there is not a need to add additional criteria. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.047

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies However, NACWA notes that use of the arithmetic average of geometric means as a component of the allowable excursion frequency in the case of the proposed criteria for Florida actually increases the rate of false positives (more healthy waterbodies being deemed impaired) due to the incompleteness of EPA's database in Florida. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.111

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Statement: EPA further requests comment on whether an expression of the criteria in terms of an arithmetic average of annual geometric mean values based on rolling three-year periods of time would also be protective of the designated use. Comment: The primary issue is that the method utilized to define the criteria is consistent with the method used for the statistics of evaluating the stations. At present for the stream analyses there are some inconsistencies that have been pointed out previously. The use of the rolling average for the 3-year period would allow too much influence from one year period to propogate, the violation frequency for the annuals is sufficient to be protective, and allows for some anomalous years to occur, there is not a need to add additional criteria. 

# Response Comment IDs: 1352-1.001.177, 1761-3.001.126, 1774.001.018, 1777-2.001.094, 1786-1.001.047, 1805-3.001.111

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3500Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Response: EPA received several comments related to compliance issues with the proposed criteria. The first theme related to the central tendency measure considered, spatial scale of averaging, and the frequency and duration elements. The first set of comments under this theme related to the geometric mean. Some commenters argued that annual geometric means require sufficient data to be accurately representative and that monthly samples will lead to uncertainty in the estimate of the true mean. EPA has considered this and other comments in reevaluating the use of geometric means and the minimum observations necessary for developing mean concentration estimates. EPA developed the criteria in a manner consistent with the data available. The geometric mean was deemed to be appropriate given the log-normal statistical behavior of nutrient data within and across sites. With regards to the sample frequency for compliance, FDEP has developed a process for evaluating consistency with numeric criteria, including geometric mean criteria. EPA expects FDEP to apply such processes to the nutrient criteria established here. The evaluation of the degree of chance involved in incorrectly concluding an exceedance when it does not exist has to be equally balanced by the risk of not identifying an exceedance when it does exist. EPA has considered different options and concluded that the annual geometric mean is the most appropriate representation and is using this in the final rule. EPA is not establishing any requirements regarding sampling frequency. FDEP can make any appropriate changes to their sampling standard operating procedures. The second set of comments under this theme suggested that averaging multiple sites within a stream reach to evaluate compliance at a downstream node would be most appropriate because of concerns about autocorrelation. EPA agrees and considered this issue in reevaluating the spatial scale over which averaging occurred. For the final rule EPA is using a WBID-based spatial scale, like that developed for the Benchmark Approach advocated by FDEP and considered by EPA. The advantage to the WBID average approach is avoiding issues of spatial autocorrelation. A disadvantage of this approach is the need to protect entire stream sections from nutrient impairments; the averaging approach recommended could result in averaging potentially elevated downstream reaches with un-impacted upstream reach concentrations among other potential scenarios. EPA determined the advantages outweighed the disadvantages and selected WBID averages as the appropriate scale for final criteria in all the regions. A third element of this first theme was that medians should be used instead of geometric means. EPA considered medians as a possible option, and selected geometric means for the final rule because of the effects of sample size on median estimation. It is worth noting that medians are similar to geometric means when sample sizes are large for log-normally distributed variables. A fourth set of comments suggested that criteria be expressed as 5-year arithmetic means of annual geometric means, which would be consistent with assessment periods approved by EPA for the IWR and the 5-year NPDES cycle. EPA considered many averaging options when deciding on the final duration element of the stream criteria. An issue of concern for EPA is the lag time between detecting and responding to potential nutrient enrichment issues which would occur with long evaluation periods. This concern has to be weighed against the need for comprehensive treatment of data and identification of impairment. Some commenters argued that a 3-year rolling average of geometric means would be better than one-in-three year approaches while others argued that a three year rolling average approach would allow too much influence from one year’s data. There is an assumption that streams are resilient to disturbance and that one year’s exceedance is allowable, but allowing longer duration exceedances without action may not be supported scientifically as discussed in the proposed and final rule and proposed and final rule TSD. EPA chose to use an annual average not to be exceeded more than once in three years for the final rule based on this and similar comments. This duration was considered appropriate because of the generally chronic manifestation of nutrient effects on flowing systems. The no more than 1-in-3 year frequency element was considered appropriate because of the relative resilience of flowing water systems and evidence of recovery times expected of disturbed streams as outlined in the final rule TSD. The second theme under the general compliance question is that EPA should add guidance regarding sampling relative to stream flows and a load component and, similarly, that criteria should not apply during extreme weather events. EPA has considered these

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3501Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams issues and concludes that compliance monitoring should be done in a manner consistent with the way in which data were collected to derive the criteria. FDEP has monitoring guidelines used for evaluating compliance with water quality criteria. EPA is not establishing any requirements regarding sampling frequency. FDEP can make any appropriate changes to their sampling standard operating procedures. A third theme under the compliance issue was that concentrations of TN and TP required to meet the 1-in-3 year excursion frequency are lower than the actual criteria proposed. EPA has considered this comment and has reviewed the effect of frequencies on effective concentrations. This issue applies no less to nutrients than any water quality criterion with a 1-in-3 year frequency requirement and principally affects only streams whose average annual concentration is right at the criterion. The goal should be to maintain streams below this concentration to assure protection. A final comment theme requested information on how compliance will be determined within the first three years of the rule. EPA believes compliance with the proposed criteria will be conducted under the same strategy FDEP employs for evaluating compliance with all water quality criteria currently and that proposed numeric nutrient criteria would be evaluated as an additional criterion for consideration by the state in their CWA section 305(b) and 303(d) reporting cycles. 

# III.C.3 - REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND DATA ON PROPOSED APPROACH No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

# III.C.3.Q.1 - REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND DATA ON PROPOSED APPROACH QUESTION 1 Comment ID 1761-3.001.127

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(3) Request for Comment and Data on Proposed Approach Statement: EPA is soliciting comments on the approaches taken by the Agency to derive these proposed criteria, the data underlying those approaches, and the proposed criteria specifically. EPA is requesting that the public submit any other scientific data and information that may be available related to nutrient concentrations and associated biological responses in Florida's streams. EPA is soliciting comment specifically on the selection of criteria parameters for TN and TP; the proposed classification of streams into four regions based on aggregated watersheds; and the conclusion that the proposed criteria for streams are protective of designated uses and adequately account for the spatial and temporal variability of nutrients. In addition, EPA requests comment on folding the Suwannee River watershed in north central

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3502Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Florida into the larger Peninsula NWR (i.e., not having a separate North Central region) or, alternatively, making a smaller North Central region within Hamilton County alone where the highest phosphorus- rich soils are located, with the remainder of the North Central becoming part of the Peninsula Region. Comment: The underlying approach of using the SCI and IWR listing is too simplified. SCI has been shown to exhibit significant variation between site visits where ‘...DEP biologists, who noted that many reference streams, formally evaluated as "excellent" using the pre-2004 SCI criteria, were now considered "fair", or sometimes "poor" using the SCI 2004 thresholds' (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107). It is acknowledged that all "confounding factors" cannot reasonably be identified and that only post-2004 SCI scores are being used; however FDEP provided significant amounts of data to establish "reference" streams and EPA has only chosen to use the SCI metric. FDEP's reference approach included SCI, habitat assessment, hydrologic score, land disturbance indicator (LDI) score as well as periphyton community structure. Simply including only sites that are not listed on the IWR for nutrients and/or DO also is questionable due to that fact that many streams in Florida exhibit blackwater characteristics or are heavily influenced by wetland systems. In many cases, nutrients can be naturally higher while DOs can be naturally lower as a result of these influences. As a result, some WBIDs with "healthy" SCI scores are not included. In an effort to analyze the correlation between Stream Condition Index (SCI) and IWR listings, data provided by the FDEP in Microsoft excel format was used. This data is based on EPA methodology and the file (‘IPV Data Distribution Based (Final Data Used).xls') was downloaded from the FDEP ftp site. No spreadsheet was readily available from the EPA; however according to the FDEP documentation description: "This is the final data used to derive the IPV criteria using distribution based approach of biologically healthy sites." Figure 1 presents a histogram plot of all SCI values versus WBID IWR designation. Note that several SCI values can occur within a WBID while other WBIDs do not have an SCI (and are not plotted). Significant overlap exists between the SCIs found on WBIDs listed on the IWR when compared to WBIDs not listed on the IWR. As described in the Federal Register, WBIDs listed for any nutrient or DO impairments were not included. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4: Comparison of all SCI values based on IWR listing. See original comment letter. Additionally, FDEP recommended an SCI cutoff of 35 for "healthy" systems (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107) while EPA has proposed 40. FDEP's proposed cutoff has more analysis defending its result. The proposed system (i.e., SCI and IWR listing) is not adequate in accounting for spatial and temporal variation. The majority of SCI scores represent 1 or 2 scores per site, while SCI scores are not available for many WBIDs. Therefore temporal and spatial variability is severely limited. Additionally, in reviewing the calculations establishing TN/TP values, it seems EPA is using STORET station locations and not WBIDs. For example, the Bone Valley TN/TP values were calculated based on 22 average site measurements (N=22) at STORET stations (See table below). However, note that these 22 average site measurements represent only 16 WBIDs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3503Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

In reviewing the Bone Valley IPV calculations for TN, it seems only a small fraction of available data was utilized in their analysis. This is especially astounding when comparing the EPA's data to the FDEP IWR data base. Original comment letter contains additional information in the table for Bone Valley IPV calculations for TN on page 55 of the pdf. See original comment letter. To summarize, EPA used 16 WBIDs and 165 data points to establish TN IPVs for Bone Valley (which has 116 WBIDs according to EPA NWR delineations). Therefore only approximately 14 percent of Bone Valley WBIDs are included in the EPA analysis. In terms of amount of data used, ATM looked up TN data available in FDEP IWR_Run37 for WBID 1658 and found 68 data points are available (EPA used only 8 measurements for this WBID). For WBID 1443D, 241 TN data points are available in FDEP IWR_Run73 (EPA used only 6 measurements for this WBID). It is acknowledged that EPA performed some additional data filtering, including excising data measured at deeper than 1 meter from the surface, however this additional filtering does not account for the paucity of data used in the above analysis.



# Comment ID 1777-2.001.095

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(3) Request for Comment and Data on Proposed Approach Statement: EPA is soliciting comments on the approaches taken by the Agency to derive these proposed criteria, the data underlying those approaches, and the proposed criteria specifically. EPA is requesting that the public submit any other scientific data and information that may be available related to nutrient concentrations and associated biological responses in Florida's streams. EPA is soliciting comment specifically on the selection of criteria parameters for TN and TP; the proposed classification of streams into four regions based on aggregated watersheds; and the conclusion that the proposed criteria for streams are protective of designated uses and adequately account for the spatial and temporal variability of nutrients. In addition, EPA requests comment on folding the Suwannee River watershed in north central Florida into the larger Peninsula NWR (i.e., not having a separate North Central region) or, alternatively, making a smaller North Central region within Hamilton County alone where the highest phosphorus- rich soils are located, with the remainder of the North Central becoming part of the Peninsula Region. Comment: The underlying approach of using the SCI and IWR listing is too simplified. SCI has been shown to exhibit significant variation between site visits where ‘...DEP biologists, who noted that many reference streams, formally evaluated as "excellent" using the pre-2004 SCI criteria, were now considered "fair", or sometimes "poor" using the SCI 2004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3504Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams thresholds' (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107). It is acknowledged that all "confounding factors" cannot reasonably be identified and that only post-2004 SCI scores are being used; however FDEP provided significant amounts of data to establish "reference" streams and EPA has only chosen to use the SCI metric. FDEP's reference approach included SCI, habitat assessment, hydrologic score, land disturbance indicator (LDI) score as well as periphyton community structure. Simply including only sites that are not listed on the IWR for nutrients and/or DO also is questionable due to that fact that many streams in Florida exhibit blackwater characteristics or are heavily influenced by wetland systems. In many cases, nutrients can be naturally higher while DOs can be naturally lower as a result of these influences. As a result, some WBIDs with "healthy" SCI scores are not included. In an effort to analyze the correlation between Stream Condition Index (SCI) and IWR listings, data provided by the FDEP in Microsoft excel format was used. This data is based on EPA methodology and the file (‘IPV Data Distribution Based (Final Data Used).xls') was downloaded from the FDEP ftp site. No spreadsheet was readily available from the EPA; however according to the FDEP documentation description: "This is the final data used to derive the IPV criteria using distribution based approach of biologically healthy sites." Figure 1 presents a histogram plot of all SCI values versus WBID IWR designation. Note that several SCI values can occur within a WBID while other WBIDs do not have an SCI (and are not plotted). Significant overlap exists between the SCIs found on WBIDs listed on the IWR when compared to WBIDs not listed on the IWR. As described in the Federal Register, WBIDs listed for any nutrient or DO impairments were not included. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4: Comparison of all SCI values based on IWR listing. See original comment letter. Additionally, FDEP recommended an SCI cutoff of 35 for "healthy" systems (EPA-HQ-OW-2009- 0596-0107) while EPA has proposed 40. FDEP's proposed cutoff has more analysis defending its result. The proposed system (i.e., SCI and IWR listing) is not adequate in accounting for spatial and temporal variation. The majority of SCI scores represent 1 or 2 scores per site, while SCI scores are not available for many WBIDs. Therefore temporal and spatial variability is severely limited. Additionally, in reviewing the calculations establishing TN/TP values, it seems EPA is using STORET station locations and not WBIDs. For example, the Bone Valley TN/TP values were calculated based on 22 average site measurements (N=22) at STORET stations (See table below). However, note that these 22 average site measurements represent only 16 WBIDs. In reviewing the Bone Valley IPV calculations for TN, it seems only a small fraction of available data was utilized in their analysis. This is especially astounding when comparing the EPA's data to the FDEP IWR data base. Original comment letter contains additional information in the table for Bone Valley IPV calculations for TN on page 57 of the pdf. See original comment letter. To summarize, EPA used 16 WBIDs and 165 data points to establish TN IPVs for Bone Valley (which has 116 WBIDs according to EPA NWR delineations). Therefore only approximately 14 percent of Bone Valley WBIDs are included in the EPA analysis.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3505Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

In terms of amount of data used, ATM looked up TN data available in FDEP IWR_Run37 for WBID 1658 and found 68 data points are available (EPA used only 8 measurements for this WBID). For WBID 1443D, 241 TN data points are available in FDEP IWR_Run73 (EPA used only 6 measurements for this WBID). It is acknowledged that EPA performed some additional data filtering, including excising data measured at deeper than 1 meter from the surface, however this additional filtering does not account for the paucity of data used in the above analysis. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.112

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(3) Request for Comment and Data on Proposed Approach Statement: EPA is soliciting comments on the approaches taken by the Agency to derive these proposed criteria, the data underlying those approaches, and the proposed criteria specifically. EPA is requesting that the public submit any other scientific data and information that may be available related to nutrient concentrations and associated biological responses in Florida’s streams. EPA is soliciting comment specifically on the selection of criteria parameters for TN and TP; the proposed classification of streams into four regions based on aggregated watersheds; and the conclusion that the proposed criteria for streams are protective of designated uses and adequately account for the spatial and temporal variability of nutrients. In addition, EPA requests comment on folding the Suwannee River watershed in north central Florida into the larger Peninsula NWR (i.e., not having a separate North Central region) or, alternatively, making a smaller North Central region within Hamilton County alone where the highest phosphorus-rich soils are located, with the remainder of the North Central becoming part of the Peninsula Region. Comment: The underlying approach of using the SCI and IWR listing is too simplified. SCI has been shown to exhibit significant variation between site visits where ‘...DEP biologists, who noted that many reference streams, formally evaluated as “excellent” using the pre-2004 SCI criteria, were now considered “fair”, or sometimes “poor” using the SCI 2004 thresholds’ (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107). It is acknowledged that all “confounding factors” cannot reasonably be identified and that only post-2004 SCI scores are being used; however FDEP provided significant amounts of data to establish “reference” streams and EPA has only chosen to use the SCI metric. FDEP’s reference approach included SCI, habitat assessment, hydrologic score, land disturbance indicator (LDI) score as well as periphyton community structure. Simply including only sites that are not listed on the IWR for nutrients and/or DO also is questionable due to that fact that many streams in Florida exhibit blackwater characteristics or are heavily influenced by wetland systems. In many cases, nutrients can be naturally higher while DOs can be naturally lower as a result of these influences. As a result,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3506Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams some WBIDs with “healthy” SCI scores are not included. In an effort to analyze the correlation between Stream Condition Index (SCI) and IWR listings, data provided by the FDEP in Microsoft excel format was used. This data is based on EPA methodology and the file (‘IPV Data Distribution Based (Final Data Used).xls’) was downloaded from the FDEP ftp site. No spreadsheet was readily available from the EPA; however according to the FDEP documentation description: “This is the final data used to derive the IPV criteria using distribution based approach of biologically healthy sites.” Figure 1 presents a histogram plot of all SCI values versus WBID IWR designation. Note that several SCI values can occur within a WBID while other WBIDs do not have an SCI (and are not plotted). Significant overlap exists between the SCIs found on WBIDs listed on the IWR when compared to WBIDs not listed on the IWR. As described in the Federal Register, WBIDs listed for any nutrient or DO impairments were not included. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4: Comparison of all SCI values based on IWR listing. See original comment letter. Additionally, FDEP recommended an SCI cutoff of 35 for “healthy” systems (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107) while EPA has proposed 40. FDEP’s proposed cutoff has more analysis defending its result. The proposed system (i.e., SCI and IWR listing) is not adequate in accounting for spatial and temporal variation. The majority of SCI scores represent 1 or 2 scores per site, while SCI scores are not available for many WBIDs. Therefore temporal and spatial variability is severely limited. Additionally, in reviewing the calculations establishing TN/TP values, it seems EPA is using STORET station locations and not WBIDs. For example, the Bone Valley TN/TP values were calculated based on 22 average site measurements (N=22) at STORET stations (See table below). However, note that these 22 average site measurements represent only 16 WBIDs In reviewing the Bone Valley IPV calculations for TN, it seems only a small fraction of available data was utilized in their analysis. This is especially astounding when comparing the EPA’s data to the FDEP IWR data base. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table on p. 56: Bone Valley Example. See original comment letter. To summarize, EPA used 16 WBIDs and 165 data points to establish TN IPVs for Bone Valley (which has 116 WBIDs according to EPA NWR delineations). Therefore only approximately 14 percent of Bone Valley WBIDs are included in the EPA analysis. In terms of amount of data used, ATM looked up TN data available in FDEP IWR_Run37 for WBID 1658 and found 68 data points are available (EPA used only 8 measurements for this WBID). For WBID 1443D, 241 TN data points are available in FDEP IWR_Run73 (EPA used only 6 measurements for this WBID). It is acknowledged that EPA performed some additional data filtering, including excising data measured at deeper than 1 meter from the surface, however this additional filtering does not account for the paucity of data used in the above analysis.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3507Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Response Comment IDs: 1761-3.001.127, 1777-2.001.095, 1805-3.001.112 Response: EPA thanks the reviewers for their comments. Commenters 1761-3.001.127 and 1777-2.001.095 raised similar points. EPA disagrees with the first point raised that the SCI and CWA section 303(d) data used to derive EPA’s criteria are insufficient as opposed to the habitat, hydrologic scores, and LDIs of FDEP’s benchmark selection process. FDEP actually incorporated the same data as was used in its Benchmark Approach into development of the SCI and, therefore, the values of the SCI explicitly used as screens in the final EPA approach also incorporate this information. Secondly, the authors note that some of the WBIDs excluded due to CWA section 303(d) listings may be naturally low in dissolved oxygen (DO) and may have “high” SCI values. EPA rejected candidate reference sites because of low DO where those sites had been listed by FDEP on Florida’s list of impaired waters, pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA. FDEP is not required to include waterbodies on the section 303(d) list where it demonstrates that concentrations of DO were measured below the numeric criteria due solely to natural conditions. Without such a demonstration, EPA must rely on FDEP’s identification of impairment when considering whether to select candidate reference sites. Since low DO is most often related to excess nutrients, EPA elected to exclude all sites listed for both nutrient and DO impairments. Concerns regarding listings and the development of TMDLS should be addressed within those processes and are not within the scope of this rulemaking. Third, there was concern about the inclusion or exclusion of certain WBIDs. EPA disagrees that it did not use sufficient and available data. EPA used site averages for the criteria in the proposal, but is using WBID averages for the final rule. Decisions were based on available WBID level data for the final rule. Concerns about mismatches between SCI sample size within WBIDs, therefore, are not relevant. Any WBID listed as impaired for nutrients/ DO was excluded from consideration. The question regarding nutrient sample sizes within two WBIDs in the West Central Region is a similar issue. EPA only used acceptable data that were available for WBIDs considered biologically healthy based on a WBID average SCI>40 threshold. The fact that a contribution of factors resulted in only 14% of WBIDs within the Bone Valley Region having sufficient data to be considered is a function of the data available to EPA. EPA would have included a higher percentage of West Central WBIDs if they contained WBIDs of higher biological condition that also had nutrient data. With regard to sample size differences, the discrepancy in samples sizes for the first WBID chosen (1658) is because sites 155 and 274639208213598 within that WBID did not have SCI values associated with them. EPA actually did consider all the datapoints mentioned for the proposed rule, but only 8 were associated with sites with SCI scores. Similarly, the most populous site in WBID 1943D (station 108) did not have an SCI score. Again, this short discussion affirms that EPA used as much available, acceptable data as they could where SCI scores were available for the SCI approach in the final rule for the West Central Region. The commenter also suggests that FDEP has more analyses supporting an SCI threshold of 35 vs. 40 and therefore argues that a threshold of 35 should be used. EPA disagrees as it is unclear how FDEP has more analyses defending their result than EPA has to defend theirs. EPA considered all the FDEP analyses, which are included in the proposed rule and proposed rule TSD, plus those additional analyses conducted by EPA, including the proportional odds analysis of the BCG expert elicitation detailed in the proposed rule TSD as well. This additional analysis was important to the selection of the value of 40. EPA’s selection of 40 as a threshold is corroborated by FDEP’s interval and equivalence test results also included in the TSD. As a result, EPA used more analyses than FDEP in support of the SCI threshold of 40 and, moreover, FDEP’s own analysis also supports a value of 40.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3508Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# III.C.3.Q.2 - REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND DATA ON PROPOSED APPROACH QUESTION 2 Comment ID 1671-3.001.110

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection EPA requested comment on whether the North Central region was needed, and whether it should only include portions of Hamilton County while combining the rest with Peninsula. This revised North Central region, described herein, accurately captures a phosphorus-rich geological formation underlying the Suwannee, Alapaha, and Santa Fe River drainages. This naturally phosphorus-rich region encompasses an area larger than Hamilton County. As stated earlier, DEP supports combining the lower Suwannee into the Panhandle East Region. Although DEP supports the use of five watershed regions for TP criteria, we do not support the same regions for TN criteria. DEP evaluated the spatial patterns of stream nitrogen concentrations following the same general procedure for stream phosphorus concentrations and concluded that TN levels in Florida's streams are not as spatially heterogeneous as are the phosphorus levels. One exception to this pattern was found in the Panhandle West, where TN levels were generally lower in than the rest of the state (Figure 9). While natural spatial variability of phosphorus across Florida is largely attributable to variability in soil conditions and underlying geology, the spatial variability in nitrogen appears to reflect patterns of wetland coverage and spring influence. Wetlands contribute high organic nitrogen to streams and correspond to areas relatively high in TN (e.g., Green Swamp, Okefenokee, San Pedro Bay). Highly spring influenced watersheds have relatively low organic nitrogen levels, but may exhibit anthropogenically elevated nitrate levels. DEP's draft proposal combined the Northeast, North Central, Peninsula, and Bone Valley regions for purposes of nitrogen criteria development because the reference streams in these regions exhibited similar TN concentration levels, particularly at the upper end of the frequency distributions. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams in Figure 9. Boxplot of annual geometric mean total nitrogen concentrations in benchmark Florida streams from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Response

Comment ID: 1671-3.001.110 Response: EPA thanks the author for their comments. In response, in part, to comments such as this (1671-3.001.110), EPA revisited the regionalization question. Consistent with comments, EPA also found evidence to conclude some revision of regionalizations may be necessary. For the final rule, EPA has decided to split the Panhandle Region into West and East regions and to restrict the size of the West Central (previously Bone Valley) Region. Using ANOVA models to explore the variance in site average TP explained by regionalizations, splitting the panhandle into west and east regions explained more variability in phosphorus concentrations and FDEP benchmark sites than keeping these two regions combined into an overall Panhandle Region.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3509Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams This is detailed in the final rule TSD. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent. EPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion at this time. However, the final rule provides flexibility to refine TN criteria through the federal SSAC process, as appropriate, to address site-specific conditions and EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a color-TN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWRs) for TN. EPA’s analysis of thestream TN data indicated that the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than nonPanhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. 

# III.C.4 - ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES CONSIDERED BY EPA No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

# III.C.4.Q.1 - ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES CONSIDERED BY EPA QUESTION 1 Comment ID 1761-3.001.128

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(4) Alternative Approaches Considered by EPA Statement: During EPA's review of the available data and information for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's streams, EPA also considered an alternative approach for criteria derivation. EPA is specifically requesting comment on a modified reference condition approach called the benchmark distribution approach, as described below.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3510Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Comment: The currently proposed SCI/IWR approach is essentially a simplified benchmark approach. By including a ‘disturbance' metric, it seems this modified approach is becoming more like the reference site protocol proposed by FDEP (which includes SCI, landscape development index (LDI), periphyton survey, habitat disturbance, etc.). In general, the natural variability exhibited at most sites seems to mask any strong correlations between anthropogenic impacts and nutrient levels. As previously mentioned, blackwater stream characteristics and wetland influences are not adequately incorporated into the proposed rule criteria. Higher nutrient levels and lower DO values can be natural in many systems throughout Florida, therefore setting a single regionwide level or eliminating all WBIDs listed on the IWR is not a reasonable approach. As seen in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0154, FDEP found that "low DO results from adverse nutrient enrichment is not a supported contention". Overall, the reference approach will always have significant limitations due to the lack of direct correlation between nutrients and instream response. The local influence of hydrology and other factors negates the ability to reasonably utilize the reference approach, while promoted to reduce the overall workload, the adoption of the reference approach for streams will most likely increase the workload and effort required due to the need for development of multiple SSACs and listing of streams that are not impaired. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.097

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(4) Alternative Approaches Considered by EPA Statement: During EPA's review of the available data and information for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's streams, EPA also considered an alternative approach for criteria derivation. EPA is specifically requesting comment on a modified reference condition approach called the benchmark distribution approach, as described below. Comment: The currently proposed SCI/IWR approach is essentially a simplified benchmark approach. By including a ‘disturbance' metric, it seems this modified approach is becoming more like the reference site protocol proposed by FDEP (which includes SCI, landscape development index (LDI), periphyton survey, habitat disturbance, etc.). In general, the natural variability exhibited at most sites seems to mask any strong correlations between anthropogenic impacts and nutrient levels. As previously mentioned, blackwater stream characteristics and wetland influences are not adequately incorporated into the proposed rule criteria. Higher nutrient levels and lower DO values can be natural in many systems throughout

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3511Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Florida, therefore setting a single regionwide level or eliminating all WBIDs listed on the IWR is not a reasonable approach. As seen in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0154, FDEP found that "low DO results from adverse nutrient enrichment is not a supported contention". Overall, the reference approach will always have significant limitations due to the lack of direct correlation between nutrients and instream response. The local influence of hydrology and other factors negates the ability to reasonably utilize the reference approach, while promoted to reduce the overall workload, the adoption of the reference approach for streams will most likely increase the workload and effort required due to the need for development of multiple SSACs and listing of streams that are not impaired. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.114

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(4) Alternative Approaches Considered by EPA Statement: During EPA’s review of the available data and information for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s streams, EPA also considered an alternative approach for criteria derivation. EPA is specifically requesting comment on a modified reference condition approach called the benchmark distribution approach, as described below. Comment: The currently proposed SCI/IWR approach is essentially a simplified benchmark approach. By including a ‘disturbance’ metric, it seems this modified approach is becoming more like the reference site protocol proposed by FDEP (which includes SCI, landscape development index (LDI), periphyton survey, habitat disturbance, etc.). In general, the natural variability exhibited at most sites seems to mask any strong correlations between anthropogenic impacts and nutrient levels. As previously mentioned, blackwater stream characteristics and wetland influences are not adequately incorporated into the proposed rule criteria. Higher nutrient levels and lower DO values can be natural in many systems throughout Florida, therefore setting a single region-wide level or eliminating all WBIDs listed on the IWR is not a reasonable approach. As seen in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0154, FDEP found that “low DO results from adverse nutrient enrichment is not a supported contention”. Overall, the reference approach will always have significant limitations due to the lack of direct correlation between nutrients and instream response. The local influence of hydrology and other factors negates the ability to reasonably utilize the reference approach, while promoted to reduce the overall workload, the adoption of the reference approach for streams will most likely increase the workload and effort required due to the need for development of multiple SSACs and listing of streams that are not impaired. 

# Response

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3512Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams
Comment IDs: 1761-3.001.128, 1777-2.001.097, 1805-3.001.114 Response: EPA thanks the author for their comments. The first comment referred to the comparison of the EPA SCI approach as a simplified version of the FDEP Benchmark approach. EPA notes that the reference set of streams used to derive the final criteria in the rule are different than the set of streams used to derive the proposed criteria, except in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). Other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference set of streams, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream set because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central Region to calculate a percentile with confidence. The details of this decision and analysis are included in the final rule and final rule TSD. The development of the SCI, used as a screening tool for the SCI approach reference population, was not a simple process. The SCI incorporates a multitude of information in it, including rules for selecting least disturbed reference sites that were used to develop, score, and identify nutrient thresholds. Moreover, EPA disagrees that the method of selecting reference sites based on an SCI screen was arbitrary. EPA detailed in the TSD the lengthy, involved, scientifically defensible, and transparent process used to generate the multimetric index; a process that is based on well established EPA guidance and scientific principles. The bioassessment and bioindicator literature underlying the SCI is both broad and comprehensive. The Benchmark and SCI approaches are similar in that they both are reference condition approaches, which rely upon distributions of target reference populations to derive criteria. EPA points out that use of a reference condition approach is consistent with EPA peer-reviewed previously published guidance. EPA used biologicallyhealthy sites as reference sites in the SCI approach for deriving final criteria in the West Central Region and FDEP used a land usebased Benchmark approach that incorporated a variety of quality control screens that EPA improved upon by adding additional screens for the Benchmark approach which it applied for NWRs outside the West Central Region. With regards to comments regarding naturally different DO and nutrient systems, EPA has applied regionalization to minimize the effects of natural variability in setting appropriately protective criteria. As outlined in the nutrient criteria guidance, EPA recognizes that classification aims to reduce as much natural variability within classes as possible. Such classification efforts must weigh the trade-off between specificity, which would be optimized if each site were considered separately, and resource requirements and data availability, which clearly limit how fine a classification is possible. EPA considered a variety of regionalization schemes and has decided on the regionalization described above and detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA believes the regionalization is protective of Florida streams since EPA considered the full range of variability in its selection of sites and captures that variability in its selection of the SCI thresholds based on inter-site variability among reference sites and in its selection of the upper bound percentiles of the reference population. Where alternative criteria reflecting naturally lower or higher nutrients can be demonstrated to be protective, the federal site-specific alternative criteria procedure established in the rule may be used. The SSAC process is intended for such changes when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. 

# III.C.4.A - BENCHMARK DISTRIBUTION APPROACH Comment ID 1230.001.004

Author Name: Craw V. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3513Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Now I would like to share some specific technical comments that we have on the proposed rule. E.P.A. should use the Florida Department of Environmental Protection benchmark approach for determining biologically healthy sites rather than the reference condition approach and should use the 90th percentile of sites as a threshold for determining impairment regardless of which approach is used. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.022

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Pinellas County concurs with FDEP's proposal to address the lack of a measurable dose/response relationship by performing a biological validation before listing waters as impaired 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.023

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. U.S. EPA is supported in its use of reference conditions rather than benchmark distributions to develop nutrient criteria for Florida waters - FDEP (2009a,b, 2010a,b) suggested use of benchmark distributions rather than true reference or minimally impacted conditions, as a "modified reference condition approach" to develop nutrient criteria. In the benchmark approach, a step-wise procedure is used to calculate distributional statistics of TN and TP from "least disturbed" sites (U.S. EPA 2010a, p.4196). The benchmark sites are identified by these steps: (i) Make a list of sites with low landscape development intensity based on FDEP's Landscape Development Intensity Index (basis, Brown and Vivas 2005, according to FDEP 2009b), which was described by U.S. EPA (2010a, p.4196) as "a quantitative, integrated measure of the degree of human landscape disturbance within 100 meters on either side of a specified stream reach and extending to 10 kilometers upstream of the same stream reach." (ii) Eliminate sites that are on the state's Clean Water Act section 303(d) list of impaired waters due to nutrients, and certain sites impaired for dissolved oxygen if the impairment was caused by nutrients. (iii) Eliminate sites with nitrate+nitrite (NOx) concentrations higher than FDEP's proposed NOx criterion of 350 ug/L, to lessen the prospect of including sites with more remote human disturbance from groundwater impacts. (iv) Eliminate sites known by FDEP scientists to be disturbed. (v) Eliminate sites affected by outlier values, as statistically determined. (vi) Verify sites using high-resolution aerial photographs. (vii) Verify a random sample of sites by field groundtruthing. FDEP (2010a,b) selected either the 75th percentile (Bone Valley, where only four "least disturbed" sites were identified with available data) or the 90th percentile (the other three Nutrient Watershed Regions) of the benchmark distributions for its proposed nutrient criteria. As described by U.S. EPA (2010a, p.4196), the basis for selection of these percentiles was "the degree of certainty regarding the benchmark sites reflecting least-disturbed conditions and a probability (10%

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3514Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams for the 90th percentile) of falsely identifying a least-disturbed site as being impaired for nutrients." The annual geometric means of nutrient concentrations for the benchmark sites in each region was then calculated. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.069

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District C. USEPA Should Document Why They Did Not Adopt the FDEP's Benchmark Approach The District supports the comments provided by FDEP (see FDEP comment C1-C4) and sees no defensible reasons why USEPA did not adopt the FDEP benchmark approach. USEPA failed to provide the significant lines of evidence needed to support its approach. If the reference approach, with its inherent shortcomings, is the tool used to develop numeric nutrient criteria, it is appropriate to utilize the technical methodologies from the state agency that developed the tool for the state in question. Furthermore, the state agency in this instance has invested significant time and resources in the development of their benchmark approach to ensure validity of its approach. Specifically, the FDEP has spent over a decade and over three million dollars refining their SCI based benchmark approach (FDEP Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Plan, March 2009).[2] They also went to extra quality control measures in the selection of their benchmark sites, a process not followed by USEPA in its approach. [2] FDEPs NNC Development Plan is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/ nutrients/docs/fl-nutrient-planv030309.pdf. 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.012

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport

• EPA's selection criteria for reference waters focus solely on whether aquatic life use in the stream is attained. The Department's more stringent selection process, which excluded sites with potential anthropogenic sources of nutrients, provided additional assurance that the criteria are inherently protective of downstream waters 

# Comment ID 1695-1.001.005

Author Name: Wiley N. Organization: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Streams: The preferred approach for developing numeric criterion for streams in Florida is to establish nutrient criteria

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3515Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams based on dependently measured biological responses. With the exception of nitrate in clear streams, however, analyses conducted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and recognized by EPA failed to link nutrient concentrations with adverse environmental impacts. Upon this determination, EPA guidance provides for establishing numeric thresholds utilizing a regionalized reference site distributional approach that DEP used with the "Nutrient Benchmark Site Distributional Approach" for establishing nutrient criteria for streams. DEP employed a comprehensive, multi-step evaluation to insure ilie selected benchmark sites represented minimally disturbed stream conditions. This process was fully supported by DEP's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and EPA's peer reviewers. We consider DEP's selection of benchmark sites to be wholly appropriate for establishing numeric criteria. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.129

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(4)(a) Benchmark Distribution Approach Statement: EPA is seeking comment on a modified reference condition approach, which was developed by FDEP and is referred to as the benchmark distribution approach. Comment: The FDEP's proposed benchmark distribution approach for IPVs seem more comprehensive and defensible than the currently proposed EPA IPV rule. Although the FDEP approach should include more hydrological factors that physically characterize the streams. As stated in EPAHQ- OW-2009-0596-0009: "Multiple factors can strongly influence the expression of biological responses to nutrient across water bodies, such as water velocity, residence time, availability of other nutrients, presence of grazers, availability of light (due to tree canopy cover and/or water transparency) and availability of suitable habitat". An independent reviewer (EPA-HQ-OW-2009- 0596-0010) states that physical factors dominate most aspects of stream biology and overshadow impacts of nutrients. We concur with this statement and find the EPA and FDEP methods deficient in characterizing stream hydrodynamics (including seasonal and annual variability). Also the general presumption of "not reference" equals impaired can be problematic. The LOESS regression modeling performed by FDEP does not seem robust and the fits of these high-order polynomial lines to measured data seem questionable. High-order polynomials are typically relatively good at fitting data; however visual inspection does not show the fits to be significant and may not be repeatable. TSD EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596­ 0003.16 features the FSU statistics department study using a "variety of statistical techniques" including linear regression, multiple linear regression, non-linear regression, LOESS, quantile regression, change point analysis, Classification and regression tree (CART), correlation and other methods. Results were similar where weak statistical relationships were found and "FDEP could not identify specific thresholds" for numeric nutrient criteria. Unfortunately this seems to imply that data should be analyzed on a station by station or WBID-by-WBID basis due to their sitespecific nature. By including data from most of the state, or even nutrient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3516Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams watershed regions, too many individual systems with different characteristics are being analyzed at one time. EPA has used a similar methodology for the proposed rule. As an example, the Baker Creek WBID 1522c, a general trend was seen where TN concentration exhibited decreasing variability as flow increased and generally higher TN concentrations were associated with low flows (ATM, 2010). In contrast to this, the upstream Mill Creek WBID 1542A measured TN concentrations generally increased with increased flow. If data from both of these sites are combined, then these trends are masked. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.098

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(4)(a) Benchmark Distribution Approach Statement: EPA is seeking comment on a modified reference condition approach, which was developed by FDEP and is referred to as the benchmark distribution approach. Comment: The FDEP's proposed benchmark distribution approach for IPVs seem more comprehensive and defensible than the currently proposed EPA IPV rule. Although the FDEP approach should include more hydrological factors that physically characterize the streams. As stated in EPAHQ- OW-2009-0596-0009: "Multiple factors can strongly influence the expression of biological responses to nutrient across water bodies, such as water velocity, residence time, availability of other nutrients, presence of grazers, availability of light (due to tree canopy cover and/or water transparency) and availability of suitable habitat". An independent reviewer (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010) states that physical factors dominate most aspects of stream biology and overshadow impacts of nutrients. We concur with this statement and find the EPA and FDEP methods deficient in characterizing stream hydrodynamics (including seasonal and annual variability). Also the general presumption of "not reference" equals impaired can be problematic. The LOESS regression modeling performed by FDEP does not seem robust and the fits of these high-order polynomial lines to measured data seem questionable. High-order polynomials are typically relatively good at fitting data; however visual inspection does not show the fits to be significant and may not be repeatable. TSD EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596­ 0003.16 features the FSU statistics department study using a "variety of statistical techniques" including linear regression, multiple linear regression, non-linear regression, LOESS, quantile regression, change point analysis, Classification and regression tree (CART), correlation and other methods. Results were similar where weak statistical relationships were found and "FDEP could not identify specific thresholds" for numeric nutrient criteria. Unfortunately this seems to imply that data should be analyzed on a station by station or WBID-by-WBID basis due to their sitespecific nature. By including data from most of the state, or even nutrient watershed regions, too many individual systems with different characteristics are being analyzed at one time. EPA has

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3517Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams used a similar methodology for the proposed rule. As an example, the Baker Creek WBID 1522c, a general trend was seen where TN concentration exhibited decreasing variability as flow increased and generally higher TN concentrations were associated with low flows (ATM, 2010). In contrast to this, the upstream Mill Creek WBID 1542A measured TN concentrations generally increased with increased flow. If data from both of these sites are combined, then these trends are masked. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.025

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water AgenciesThe EPA also proposed an alternative methodology developed by the FDEP. It utilizes data collapsed to the waterbodyyear level, averaged over stations and sampling events. With sufficient data, a statistical method that considers the spatial (station-to-station) and temporal (year-to-year) variability could be used to develop a reliable criterion. However, using aggregated data that ignores the variability inherent in the data will not reliably measure nutrient levels needed to regulate water quality. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.115

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(4)(a) Benchmark Distribution Approach Statement: EPA is seeking comment on a modified reference condition approach, which was developed by FDEP and is referred to as the benchmark distribution approach. Comment: The FDEP’s proposed benchmark distribution approach for IPVs seem more comprehensive and defensible than the currently proposed EPA IPV rule. Although the FDEP approach should include more hydrological factors that physically characterize the streams. As stated in EPA¬HQ-OW-2009-0596-0009: “Multiple factors can strongly influence the expression of biological responses to nutrient across water bodies, such as water velocity, residence time, availability of other nutrients, presence of grazers, availability of light (due to tree canopy cover and/or water transparency) and availability of suitable habitat”. An independent reviewer (EPA-HQ-OW-2009¬0596-0010) states that physical factors dominate most aspects of stream biology and overshadow impacts of nutrients. We concur with this statement and find the EPA and FDEP methods deficient in characterizing stream hydrodynamics (including seasonal and annual variability). Also the general presumption of “not reference” equals impaired can be problematic. The LOESS regression modeling performed by FDEP does not seem robust and the fits of these high-order polynomial

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3518Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams lines to measured data seem questionable. High-order polynomials are typically relatively good at fitting data; however visual inspection does not show the fits to be significant and may not be repeatable. TSD EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596­ 0003.16 features the FSU statistics department study using a "variety of statistical techniques” including linear regression, multiple linear regression, non-linear regression, LOESS, quantile regression, change point analysis, Classification and regression tree (CART), correlation and other methods. Results were similar where weak statistical relationships were found and "FDEP could not identify specific thresholds" for numeric nutrient criteria. Unfortunately this seems to imply that data should be analyzed on a station by station or WBID-by-WBID basis due to their site-specific nature. By including data from most of the state, or even nutrient watershed regions, too many individual systems with different characteristics are being analyzed at one time. EPA has used a similar methodology for the proposed rule. As an example, the Baker Creek WBID 1522c, a general trend was seen where TN concentration exhibited decreasing variability as flow increased and generally higher TN concentrations were associated with low flows (ATM, 2010). In contrast to this, the upstream Mill Creek WBID 1542A measured TN concentrations generally increased with increased flow. If data from both of these sites are combined, then these trends are masked. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.025

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District B. Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the State of Florida's Rivers and Streams
15. USEPA should use FDEP's "benchmark approach" for determining biologically healthy sites rather than the "reference condition approach," and should use the 90th percentile of the distribution of benchmark sites as the threshold for the proposed criteria. For streams that are above the 90th percentile, it is recommended that evidence of impairment be documented through biological surveys. The "benchmark approach" utilized by the FDEP is a more appropriate method; this approach uses minimally disturbed sites rather than true reference sites, and incorporates the Landscape Development Intensity Index. 

# Response Comment IDs: 1230.001.004, 1431-1.001.022, 1464-02.001.023, 1476-2.001.069, 1480-2.001.012, 1695-1.001.005, 1761­ 3.001.129, 1777-2.001.098, 1786-1.001.025, 1805-3.001.115, 1836.001.025 Response: The CWA and implementing regulations require that water quality standards include criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge and that protect the designated use. EPA determined that numeric nutrient criteria were necessary to protect the State's Class III lakes and flowing waters, and has developed these criteria accordingly. EPA notes that the reference set of streams used to derive the final criteria in the rule are different than the set of streams used to derive the EPA proposed criteria, except in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3519Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Benchmark Approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula regions. That modified approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed land cover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. EPA recognizes the significant amount of work done by FDEP in selecting and vetting sites for its original regional benchmark distributions, considered the Benchmark Approach and for the final rule is using a version of it. EPA's evaluation of the original FDEP Benchmark Approach did not provide EPA with sufficient confidence that all sites in the State's original benchmark distribution were unaffected by nitrogen/phosphorus pollution resulting from human activities and, therefore, developed a similar process but with more stringent screens. EPA posted in a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability an approach that uses this benchmark type approach similar to that developed by FDEP, but with the additional screens applied to candidate reference waters. Because EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified there. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. The frequency and duration components of the final criteria are geometric means not to be exceeded more than once in three years and were chosen to allow for the natural variability of nutrients in these streams. There is an assumption that streams are resilient to disturbance and that one year’s exceedance is allowable, but allowing longer duration exceedances without action may not be supported scientifically, as discussed in the proposed and final rule and proposed and final rule TSD. EPA chose to use an annual average not to be exceeded more than once in three years for the final rule based on this and similar comments. The frequency and duration components of these criteria were chosen to allow for the natural variability of nutrients in these streams. This duration was considered appropriate because of the generally chronic manifestation of nutrient effects on flowing systems. The 1-in-3 year frequency was considered appropriate because of the relative resilience of flowing water systems and evidence of recovery times expected of disturbed streams as outlined in the final rule TSD. EPA considers the magnitude, frequency, and duration of these criteria to fully protect the designated use with a high probability, and that appropriate implementation of these criteria into assessment methodology should reliably identify streams impaired for nutrients and in need of remediation under the CWA.� Some of these comments also refer to the need for biological validation. 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. Requiring independent validation of biological impairment would, ostensibly, invalidate the need for protective nutrient criterion to protect aquatic life. The final numeric nutrient criteria established in this rule, therefore, will be the applicable criteria for the purposes of the CWA. The CWA does not provide for the implementation of these criteria contingent upon, or conditioned by, whether a specific waterbody meets or exceeds some other criteria. The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain water quality by regulating all pollutants that may compromise that integrity. To that end, each water quality criteria applies independently for the purpose of the CWA. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3520Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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.� With regard to consideration of multiple factors that can strongly influence expression of response to nutrients, these factors commonly change over time and space and do not change the fact that, when and where it occurs, excess primary productivity is driven by excess nutrients. EPA has determined that numeric nutrient criteria are needed for all Class I and III waters in Florida. The more site-specific factors described in the comment could be considered subsequently as changes to these generally applicable criteria. Where alternative criteria reflecting naturally lower or higher nutrients can be demonstrated to be protective, the federal site-specific alternative criteria procedure established in the rule may be used. The SSAC process is intended for such changes when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. EPA has a statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use and assure the maintenance and protection of downstream uses. With respect to the comments regarding loess regression, EPA used this non-linear regression approach to explore relationships but not to derive endpoints. The proposed and final rules are explicit that the reference condition approach was used to derive criteria. The comment implies that EPA did not sufficiently consider inter-site and inter-annual variability in setting criteria. EPA disagrees. Setting an annual average does not mean that inter-annual variability is not incorporated into the criterion. The selected annual average criteria to be employed were derived from multi-year annual averages that incorporate this variability. The resultant criteria, in order to incorporate that variability, were not the simple average of annual averages, but indeed an upper percentile of the distribution of annual averages that includes naturally variable years. Moreover, EPA allows for this annual average criterion to be exceeded once in a three year period, further allowing for climatic variability. Therefore, the approach used by EPA does incorporate and account for temporal variability both explicitly and implicitly. Prior to the development of numeric nutrient criteria for Class III waters in Florida, TMDLs required for waters listed on the State's CWA section 303(d) list as impaired for nutrients or nutrient related parameters were developed utilizing targets based upon a translation of the existing narrative criteria. Those translations were typically based upon the best available data and information at the time, and involved limiting assumptions and potential consideration of attainment that are not necessarily appropriate for

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3521Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams numeric criteria development under CWA section 303(c). The criteria included in this rule, once finalized become effective for the purpose of the CWA. The established criteria do not change or modify existing TMDL targets. However, these targets can be reviewed for consistency with the numeric criteria and submitted to EPA for consideration as SSACs if warranted. EPA read the comments with regards to site-specificity and temporal nutrient responses with flow, but it is unclear what concern is being raised, if any.

References: 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. Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542. Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429. Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643-657. Cross, W.F., J.B. Wallace, A.D. Rosemond, and S.L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565. Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427. Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158. Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477. 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 production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142. Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368. Gaiser, E.E., J.C. Trexler, J.H. Richards, D.L.Childers, D. Lee, A.L. Edwards, L.J. Scinto, K. Jayachandran, G.B. Noe, and R.D.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3522Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Jones, 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723. Lohman, K., J.R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23. Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835. Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117. Notestein, S.K., T.K. Frazer, M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G. S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386. Rosemond, A.D., P.J. Mulholland, and J.W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J.L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289. Slavik, K., B.J. Peterson, L.A. Deegan, W.B. Bowden, A.E. Hershey, J.E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939-954. Stelzer, R.S. and G.A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367. 

# III.C.4.A.I - IDENTIFICATION OF LEAST DISTURBED STREAMS Comment ID 1464-2.001.024

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3523Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The following comments about the seven steps used by FDEP provide rationale as to why the agency's benchmark approach may not have resulted in selection of streams that are "least disturbed": In step (i), it seems questionable that human landscape disturbance should only be considered to have affected a "benchmark reference stream" if the disturbance lies within a 100-meter corridor immediately adjacent to the stream on either side, and extending to a maximal distance of 10 kilometers upstream from the same stream reach. Some pollutants can travel much greater distances (e.g. nitrate, ~200 km; Mallin et al. 1993). Moreover, this approach would not appear to take into account some anthropogenic nutrient sources, such as atmospheric deposition. Step (ii) seems straightforward. In step (iii), it is inaccurate to assume that sites with NOx concentrations less than 350 ug/L can be considered "reference conditions" because inorganic N concentrations may be elevated such that the stream is neither "least impacted" nor a true reference condition. FDEP stated that it based this 350 ug/L value, for consistency, on the draft standard that it had developed for nitrate in springs, spring runs, and clear streams (see Section 4 of these comments, below). Historically, nitrate concentrations in Florida's spring discharges, which contribute to the flow of various streams, were only about 50 ug/L according to Maddox et al. (1992; see U.S. EPA 2010a, p. 4209). Dodds (2006, p.675) reported that the lower one-third of the distribution of reference stream TN values pooled across 12 ecoregions ranged from 298-370 ug/L as total nitrogen. FDEP's 350 ug/L is at the high end of that range for TN, all as nitrate, suggesting that this amount of nitrate is excessive for "least impacted" conditions since dominance of the total dissolved N pool by nitrate can indicate a state of "N hypersaturation, which appears to be increasingly common in human-influenced streams and rivers" (Stanley and Maxted 2008). This information again suggests that 350 ug nitrate/L is unacceptably high as a "least impacted" condition in Florida streams. Steps (iv) and (v) are straightforward. However, in step (vi), high-resolution aerial photos may or may not reveal some sources of pollution that had not previously been detected (e.g. atmospheric deposition). Step (vii) should be more clearly described, with supporting rationale: How many sites would be in the random sample for each Watershed Nutrient Region? How would field groundtruthing be conducted - how many samples would be taken, during what period and for what parameters? 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.026

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. Thus, in general (exception - Bone Valley region - see next sub-section below), FDEP's benchmark approach is not as protective as U.S. EPA's (2010a) reference stream approach. I share U.S. EPA's (2010a) reservations that nutrient concentrations in FDEP's "least disturbed" sites may still reflect anthropogenic sources that are more than 100 meters away from and/or 10 kilometers upstream from the segment. Therefore, I support U.S. EPA's (2010a) use of reference (minimally impacted) streams rather than FDEP's "least disturbed" segments. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.026

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3524Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

C. Comments on DEP's Benchmark or Reference Site Approach for Streams
1. Comments on DEP's Process to Identify Benchmark Sites DEP selected the minimally disturbed "benchmark", or "reference site" data set through an extremely rigorous scientific process. DEP provided EPA with hundreds of pages of documentation supporting the logic behind each step of the reference site selection process, and included maps, photos, and data from site visits. In response to requests from DEP, three senior EPA scientists visited five DEP reference sites and concluded verbally that they were indeed minimally disturbed. DEP invited EPA to visit all DEP reference sites but up to this point in time EPA has declined this offer. A DEP literature search and information from EPA's contractor (Tetra Tech) conclusively indicate that Florida used objective, defensible criteria and produced more documentation supporting reference site conditions than has EPA or any other state. EPA's own peer review panel commented that DEP's reference selection, or "benchmark" approach was reasonable and scientifically defensible. The following quotes are from EPA's peer reviewers:

• EPA Peer Reviewer 2 stated, "I am extremely impressed by the way DEP has gone about choosing reference sites for nutrient criteria. It was a multifaceted approach utilizing LDI, 303(d) list, the proposed N criteria, aerial photos, site visits, statistical analysis, and expert opinion. I can think of nothing that would improve upon their selection process."

• EPA Peer Reviewer 3 remarked, "The methods used to identify, screen, cull and eventually select benchmark sites were rigorous and sound. Considerable effort has been applied to the task of screening benchmark sites. The steps seem reasonable in general. Exclusion of sites on the basis of a nitrate threshold seems like a clever basis for identifying far-field effects transmitted via groundwater..."

• EPA Peer Reviewer 4 stated, "The rigorousness of the benchmark screening process leads me to believe that all nutrient concentrations observed at the benchmark sites are fully protective of the use. In the present situation, given the rigorousness of the process to select nutrient benchmark sites, it would be logical to conclude that most sites in the region were in attainment."

• EPA Peer Reviewer 5 commented, "An elaborate screening protocol is described for winnowing available sites to benchmark pool. Though some assumptions can be questioned, the overall impression is of a conservative approach, ensuring a valid list of candidate datasets with which to establish minimally impacted benchmark sites." Contrary to the comprehensive and rigorously developed data at hand, and contrary to their own Peer Review comments, EPA developed a different, much less rigorous process to identify reference sites (see separate comments on EPA's methodology), rather than using DEP's minimally disturbed benchmark site approach. DEP does not understand the basis for EPA's decision to develop a new method to identify reference sites, and would like to note that EPA was incorrect when it stated in the proposal, "The benchmark approach relies on least-disturbed sites rather than true reference, or minimallyimpacted, sites. The benchmark distribution is a step-wise procedure used to calculate distributional statistics of TN and TP from identified least-disturbed streams." DEP repeatedly provided information to EPA to demonstrate the minimally disturbed nature of the benchmark sites and that they fully support the designated use of a healthy, well balanced aquatic community. EPA has provided no quantitative information to support their statement that Florida's benchmark sites were not minimally impacted sites.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3525Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

The following information is provided to further demonstrate the appropriate protectiveness associated with DEP benchmark sites. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.030

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection The analysis also showed that the entire watershed LDI approach was less effective at predicting nutrients than either the corridor or near-field LDIs. The ultimate conclusion from this detailed analysis was that Tetra Tech recommended removal of two WBIDs (1653 and 3401) out of the 135 assessed, since these particular sites had elevated TP relative to the measures of LDI. DEP removed these WBIDs from the reference site distribution, re-analyzed the data, and provided the information to EPA. The Tetra Tech analysis did not conclude that any other reference sites should be removed. EPA was also concerned that DEP did not consider that channelized systems could discharge nutrients from land uses beyond a riparian zone. As stated previously, DEP staff actually visited the reference site watersheds that had nutrient concentrations above the midpoint of the data distribution in an effort to detect adverse human influences, and eliminate sites if needed. If DEP observed channelized conveyances that would likely transport potentially poor water quality to the candidate reference site, DEP eliminated the site. The sites eventually confirmed as nutrient reference sites did not have ditches from adverse land uses penetrating the riparian buffer zone. FDEP has fully evaluated all Benchmark Sites, and removed those sites that EPA identified as questionable. EPA has not visited, nor recommended the elimination of any other benchmark site to FDEP. The value of using minimally disturbed sites is the inherent protection of downstream waters and EPA should not dismiss that benefit without identifying the sites that are not minimally impacted. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.130

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(4)(a)(i) Identification of Least-Disturbed Streams Comment: Note that FDEP cites a landscape development index (LDI) in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.23 as well as a land disturbance index (also LDI) in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.25 - these terms seem to be equivalent, however this is a source of confusion in the TSD. Note that a human disturbance gradient (HDG) is also cited in EPA-HQ-OW-2009­ 0596-0003.17 . The FDEP's identification of reference streams represents a significant effort and is favored over the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3526Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams EPA method. However, some example modifications to the FDEP method are provided below. Rapid Periphyton Survey (RPS): FDEP proposed to include the RPS for benchmark stream designation. The RPS incorporates the presence of nuisance algae to establish criteria (EPAHQ- OW-2009-0596-0003.26 ). Temperature and flow were not used because they were shown not to have a large effect on algae (flow was derived from FDEP's habitat measurement and is relatively subjective). Light penetration (canopy cover), turbidity (color), and TN and TP were 'critical' predictors. The RPS analysis showed light penetration and turbidity to be critical predictors, however then essentially disregard these parameters and focus solely on TN and TP. In determining human disturbance, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107 states: "... In addition, the experts recommended a threshold of biological condition at which impairment occurs as a result of human disturbance...Karr and colleagues describe five factors to summarize the ways in which humans alter and degrade rivers and streams (Karr et al., 1986; Karr et al., 2000): flow regime, physical habitat structure, water quality, energy source, and biological interactions." This excerpt states that the first 4 out of 5 factors are accounted for, however flow regime seems to be primarily assessed by ‘flashyness'. Additionally, impervious surface (which is directly related to flashyness) is also included in habitat condition gradient (aka, physical habitat structure); therefore the potential for double-counting is present. Note that of the 5 factors mentioned, the EPA proposed rule only accounts for water quality. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.099

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(4)(a)(i) Identification of Least-Disturbed Streams Comment: Note that FDEP cites a landscape development index (LDI) in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.23 as well as a land disturbance index (also LDI) in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.25 - these terms seem to be equivalent, however this is a source of confusion in the TSD. Note that a human disturbance gradient (HDG) is also cited in EPA-HQ-OW-2009­ 0596-0003.17 . The FDEP's identification of reference streams represents a significant effort and is favored over the EPA method. However, some example modifications to the FDEP method are provided below. Rapid Periphyton Survey (RPS): FDEP proposed to include the RPS for benchmark stream designation. The RPS incorporates the presence of nuisance algae to establish criteria ( EPAHQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.26 ). Temperature and flow were not used because they were shown not to have a large effect on algae (flow was derived from FDEP's habitat measurement and is relatively subjective). Light penetration (canopy cover), turbidity (color), and TN and TP were 'critical' predictors. The RPS analysis showed light penetration and turbidity to be critical predictors, however then essentially disregard these parameters and focus solely on TN and TP. In determining human disturbance, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107 states: "... In addition, the experts recommended a threshold of biological condition at which impairment occurs as a result of human disturbance...Karr and colleagues describe five factors to summarize the ways in which humans alter and degrade rivers and streams (Karr et al., 1986; Karr et al., 2000): flow regime, physical habitat structure, water quality, energy source, and biological interactions."

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3527Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

This excerpt states that the first 4 out of 5 factors are accounted for, however flow regime seems to be primarily assessed by ‘flashyness'. Additionally, impervious surface (which is directly related to flashyness) is also included in habitat condition gradient (aka, physical habitat structure); therefore the potential for double-counting is present. Note that of the 5 factors mentioned, the EPA proposed rule only accounts for water quality. 

# Comment ID 1780-1.001.005

Author Name: Piper R. Organization: Florida Power and Light Company 4. EPA Should Not Utilize the Reference Stream Approach During the period in which it was evaluating nutrient criteria rulemaking, FDEP selected reference streams (benchmark sites) in Florida's Bone Valley, North Central, Panhandle, and Peninsula regions. These streams are the "best of the best" when it comes to high quality waters in Florida. An EPA peer-review team lauded the scientific rigor of FDEP's approach to selecting these minimally disturbed streams as reference sites, and EPA representatives even visited several of these streams.[1] Over one-third of these biologically healthy streams fail to meet one or more of the proposed EPA nutrient criteria (i.e. in-stream protective values). The pristine streams not meeting EPA's proposed criteria include flowing waters in state parks and conservation lands, such as the Econfina River in the Econfina River State Park and Black Water Creek in the Seminole State Forest. This outcome evidences the arbitrary and capricious nature of EPA's proposed criteria. [1]FDEP, Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Streams and Springs/Clear Streams 12-13 (Mar. 12, 2010), available at www.dep.state.fl.ns/water/wqssp.nutrients/docs/federal/fdep_comments_streams_criteria.pdf

. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.116

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(4)(a)(i) Identification of Least-Disturbed Streams Comment: Note that FDEP cites a landscape development index (LDI) in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.23 as well as a land disturbance index (also LDI) in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.25-these terms seem to be equivalent, however this is a source of confusion in the TSD. Note that a human disturbance gradient (HDG) is also cited in EPA-HQ-OW-2009­ 0596-0003.17 . The FDEP’s identification of reference streams represents a significant effort and is favored over the EPA method. However, some example modifications to the FDEP method are provided below.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3528Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Rapid Periphyton Survey (RPS): FDEP proposed to include the RPS for benchmark stream designation. The RPS incorporates the presence of nuisance algae to establish criteria ( EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.26 ). Temperature and flow were not used because they were shown not to have a large effect on algae (flow was derived from FDEP's habitat measurement and is relatively subjective). Light penetration (canopy cover), turbidity (color), and TN and TP were 'critical' predictors. The RPS analysis showed light penetration and turbidity to be critical predictors, however then essentially disregard these parameters and focus solely on TN and TP. In determining human disturbance, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0107 states: “... In addition, the experts recommended a threshold of biological condition at which impairment occurs as a result of human disturbance...Karr and colleagues describe five factors to summarize the ways in which humans alter and degrade rivers and streams (Karr et al., 1986; Karr et al., 2000): flow regime, physical habitat structure, water quality, energy source, and biological interactions.” This excerpt states that the first 4 out of 5 factors are accounted for, however flow regime seems to be primarily assessed by ‘flashyness’. Additionally, impervious surface (which is directly related to flashyness) is also included in habitat condition gradient (aka, physical habitat structure); therefore the potential for double-counting is present. Note that of the 5 factors mentioned, the EPA proposed rule only accounts for water quality.


# Comment ID 1919-1.001.020

Author Name: Standridge K. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. B. Comments on FDEP's Modified Reference Condition Approach (the Benchmark Distribution Approach) as an Alternative Approach. 1. Comments on whether benchmark sites represented truly least disturbed conditions and are an appropriate set of sites on which to base criteria calculations. Summary of Opinion: FDEP has followed EPA guidance on identifying reference reaches except in one regard - its use of a Land Development Intensity Index to determine the extent of human disturbance in the watershed that might be the source of nutrient pollution. As a result, FDEP overlooked pollution sources in the watersheds of the benchmark sites, some of which areserious enough to exclude a benchmark site from use as a reference reach. However, the remaining sites qualify under EPA guidance for use as reference reaches for purposes of applying EPA's reference reach methodology to develop numeric nutrient criteria for Florida. 

# Response Comment IDs: 1464-02.001.024, 1464-2.001.026, 1671-3.001.026, 1671-3.001.030, 1761-3.001.130, 1777-2.001.099, 1780­ 1.001.005, 1805-3.001.116, 1919-01.001.020 Response: EPA agrees with comments in that our evaluation of FDEP's original Benchmark Approach did not provide us with sufficient confidence upon which to base nutrient criteria protective of aquatic life instream and downstream of the point of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3529Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams application of such criteria. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the Benchmark Approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula regions. That modified approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed land cover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. EPA recognizes the significant amount of work done by FDEP in selecting and vetting sites for its original regional benchmark distributions, considered the Benchmark Approach and for the final rule is using a version of it, but EPA's evaluation of the original FDEP Benchmark Approach did not provide EPA with sufficient confidence that all sites in the State's original benchmark distribution were unaffected by nitrogen/phosphorus pollution resulting from human activities and, therefore, developed a similar process but with more stringent screens. EPA posted in a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability an approach that uses this benchmark type approach similar to that developed by FDEP, but with the additional screens applied to candidate reference waters. Because EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified there. The criteria developed for the region defined by EPA as the West Central for the final rule (previously Bone Valley) were based on relatively higher prevailing ambient levels of nutrients, clearly influenced by the natural geology of the area, but also obviously affected to some degree by human disturbance. Having no reliable way in this region to distinguish contribution from an unacceptable level of disturbance, EPA developed criteria for this region consistent with a general reference approach used for the rest of the State, albeit using the SCI approach for selecting sites for the reasons detailed above. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central Region, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. The frequency and duration components of the final criteria are geometric means not to be exceeded more than once in three years and were chosen to allow for the natural variability of nutrients in these streams. There is an assumption that streams are resilient to disturbance and that one year’s exceedance is allowable, but allowing longer duration exceedances without action may not be supported scientifically as discussed in the proposed and final rule and proposed and final rule TSD. EPA chose to use an annual average not to be exceeded more than once in three years for the final rule based on this and similar comments. The frequency and duration components of these criteria were chosen to allow for the natural variability of nutrients in these streams. This duration was considered appropriate because of the generally chronic manifestation of nutrient effects on flowing systems and the 1-in-3 year frequency element because of the relative resilience of flowing water systems and evidence of recovery times expected of disturbed streams as outlined in the final rule TSD. EPA considers the magnitude, frequency, and duration of these criteria to fully protect the designated use with a high probability, and that appropriate implementation of these criteria into assessment methodology should reliably identify streams impaired for nutrients and in need of remediation under the CWA. With regard to consideration of multiple factors that can strongly influence expression of response to nutrients, these factors commonly change over time and space and do not change the fact that, when and where it occurs, excess primary productivity is driven by excess nutrients. EPA has determined that numeric nutrient criteria are needed for all Class I and III waters in Florida. The more site-specific factors described in the comment could be considered subsequently as changes to these generally applicable criteria. Where alternative criteria reflecting naturally lower or higher nutrients can be demonstrated to be protective, the federal site-specific alternative criteria procedure established in the rule may be used. The SSAC process is intended for such changes when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3530Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. EPA has a statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use and assure the maintenance and protection of downstream uses. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmarks reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds using watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmarks reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds using watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. In its determination that numeric nutrient criteria were necessary in Florida, EPA recognized that effective assessment with narrative criteria alone for nutrients was difficult and inadequate. In developing protective numeric nutrient criteria, it is EPA's expectation that these criteria will provide for more precise and accurate assessment of nutrient impairment. And, since the use of numeric nutrient criteria is expected to provide more effective assessment, it is therefore reasonable to assume that waters with significant nutrient impact that may have been previously overlooked will now be listed. In the process, a more reliable picture of nutrient over-enrichment in Florida should emerge, and provide a sound basis for control and remediation through various CWA mechanisms and State water quality management programs. 

# III.C.4.A.II - CALCULATION OF BENCHMARK DISTRIBUTION APPROACH AND SELECTION OF PERCENTILES FROM THE

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3531Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

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

# III.C.4.Q.2 - ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES CONSIDERED BY EPA QUESTION 2 Comment ID 0909.001.003

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous Organization: 5. FLDEP's proposal for the use of the 90th percentile over the 75th percentile has merit because the data set is based on pritine streams which typicaly have the highest water quality available. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.081

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. An assumption implicit in the above analysis is that the parameters for which criteria are being derived are independent of one another (i.e., they do not co-vary). The validity of this assumption was tested for Florida benchmark waters. The charts in Figure 5.3 show TN and TP plotted together for benchmark flowing waters in each of the four regions for which EPA has proposed TN and TP criteria. As shown in each chart, the R-squared values are all less than 0.16, suggesting that TN and TP concentrations in these waters do not co-vary substantially. Original comment letter contains additional information on streams and rivers in Figure 5.3. Total Nitrogen vs. Total Phosphorus in Florida Benchmark Waters [1] 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. [1] Data from EPA OW-2009-0596-002; Streams; Healthy Biological Condition Based Distribution Analysis; IPV Data Distribution Based (Final Data Used), SCI>40. 

# Comment ID 1344.001.006

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3532Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The district supports the DEP approach. DEP has developed this process. They've taken information from the TAC, and if a reference approach must be used to develop the numeric nutrient criteria for the state of Florida, we support the benchmark approach, the 90th percentile -- and you've notice I said "if the reference approach is used." That is because there are limitations with using a reference approach, and the TAC has spent much time debating this issue. Our own scientists have been discussing it and it will come through in our comments. The challenge is, we've not been able as a scientific community to find a dose response for our streams and rivers as far as nutrients being chlorophyll or algal mass. So the other reason that we think the FDEP approach is more appropriate is they have the biological confirmation in the application of the numeric nutrient criteria rule. We feel that's a very important part of applying the reference approach to rivers and streams. 

# Comment ID 1433-1.001.006

Author Name: McIndoe J. Organization: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Similarly, FDEP was not able to find a statistically significant relationship between nutrient concentrations and periphyton community structure and abundance at the nutrient benchmark sites and concluded that the periphyton analyses and observations support the selection of the 90th percentile of the benchmark site nutrient distribution for establishment of protective criteria. 

# Comment ID 1476-1.001.012

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District o Should EPA adopt a reference approach, the District reiterates its support for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's 90th percentile reference-based approach and accompanying biological validation process. The State's technical methodologies were developed through 14 years of study and should prevail over any other reference approach. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.070

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District Where the data sets have been rigorously developed, the selection of the 90th percentile for the criterion development should be used in favor of the 75th percentile due to the documented rigor associated with FDEPs methodology. More importantly, FDEP has evidenced the importance of a biological validation as part of a rule developed with the reference approach. The District strongly supports the use of the biological confirmation as a mechanism to handle the uncertainty associated with criteria developed without known dose-response relationships.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3533Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1671-3.001.093

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 1. Study to Document Downstream Effects of Naturally elevated Nutrients in Selected Florida Rivers/Estuaries DEP initiated the Nutrient Longitudinal Study during the summer of 2008 to evaluate downstream biological responses to naturally high upstream phosphorus levels. Biological responses to excess nutrients can be separated in space and time from enrichment sources-i.e., an adverse response to nutrients may occur well downstream from the actual enrichment. DEP's hypothesis is that within systems with low levels of human disturbance and intact ecological processes, naturally high levels of nutrients can usually be assimilated into the ecosystem without causing adverse biological responses to the streams or downstream estuaries (i.e., the systems have evolved over time in conjunction with the existing nutrient regime). The goal of this study was to determine whether nutrient concentrations representative of the upper portion of the benchmark site distribution are protective of the designated use of downstream reaches. The objectives of the study were as follows: (1) Collect physical, chemical, and biological data throughout the length of selected Florida river/estuary systems to establish the relationship between nutrient levels and adverse biological responses, including the most sensitive (generally downstream) reaches; and (2) Analyze the resulting dataset as one line of evidence in DEP's effort to establish numeric nutrient criteria, particularly relating to the protection of downstream waters. The longitudinal study focused on relating the effects of nutrients on various biological systems, from upstream to downstream, including the most sensitive areas, which typically are slowly flowing lower reaches or estuaries. Two systems were studied: the Waccasassa River and Estuary and the Steinhatchee River and Estuary. Both rivers are in the Big Bend region of the state and the Peninsula nutrient region. Blue Spring in Levy County forms the source of the Waccasassa River, which flows south to the Gulf of Mexico. The Steinhatchee River originates in Lafayette County and flows south, forming the border between Taylor and Dixie Counties, and empties into the Gulf. Both systems were selected to represent conditions of relatively low human disturbance, meaning the existing nutrient concentrations represent minimal amounts of anthropogenic influence. Longitudinal Study Conclusion Total phosphorus at the upper Steinhatchee River exceeded the 90th percentile of the nutrient benchmark sites and TP in the Waccasassa estuary approached the 90th percentile, yet no adverse effects were observed in the sensitive estuarine reaches, where healthy seagrass communities and fisheries prevailed. This study found that chlorophyll a concentrations in both estuaries were below the 11 ug/L impairment threshold adopted in Chapter 62-303, F.A.C. Compared with their respective headwaters, organic nitrogen was higher in both the Waccasassa and Steinhatchee

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3534Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams estuaries, probably as a result of input from the extensive freshwater swamps, as well as the prevalent Spartina and Juncus marshes. This study, conducted at two minimally disturbed river/estuary systems, supports the position that establishing nutrient criteria at the 90th percentile of the reference site distribution is protective of the biological integrity of sensitive downstream waters. A full write up of this study is contained in Appendix D. 

# Comment ID 1695-1.001.012

Author Name: Wiley N. Organization: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Moreover, DEP went beyond EPA guidance and selected the 90th percentile of the benchmark distribution to establish threshold criteria in all but one nutrient region, the Bone Valley, where the 75th percentile was selected due to uncertainty of results from a limited amount of data. We believe that DEP's approach of using the 90th percentile of nutrient concentrations derived from a distribution of "minimally disturbed streams" is inherently protective of aquatic life, including biota inhabiting downstream waters, and that the actual documentation of minimally disturbed systems provides for a more appropriate assessment than EPA's evaluation. Furthermore, since neither DEP or EPA could identify specific thresholds for establishing numeric total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) criteria in streams due to the lack of a dose-response relationship and the because oflimitations inherent to the distributional approach, we support DEP's approach to respond to exceedances of established nutrient criteria with actual biological confirmation prior to a determination of impairment. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.131

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(4)(a)(ii) Calculation of Benchmark Distribution Approach and Selection of Percentiles From the Benchmark Distribution Statement: To compute the numeric criteria for the causal variables, TN, and TP, EPA is seeking comment on whether the 75th or 90th percentile of the benchmark distribution for each nutrient stream region should be selected. Comment: The FDEP has amassed a vast amount of data in compiling its IWR Database and, based on the amount of data available, it is believed that a 90th percentile is sufficiently adequate and defensible for setting nutrient criteria if the reference approach has to be utilized (recognizing that this approach is not supported). The EPA analysis (as mentioned previously) used significantly less data and therefore the 75th percentile may be theoretically more defensible; however the FDEP analysis is favored due to its increased rigor. Note that although the FDEP analysis is

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3535Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams favored over EPA, some refinement of the FDEP approach is needed. It must also be stated that ‘defensible' should not equate to ‘conservative'. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.100

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(4)(a)(ii) Calculation of Benchmark Distribution Approach and Selection of Percentiles From the Benchmark Distribution Statement: To compute the numeric criteria for the causal variables, TN, and TP, EPA is seeking comment on whether the 75th or 90th percentile of the benchmark distribution for each nutrient stream region should be selected. Comment: The FDEP has amassed a vast amount of data in compiling its IWR Database and, based on the amount of data available, it is believed that a 90th percentile is sufficiently adequate and defensible for setting nutrient criteria if the reference approach has to be utilized (recognizing that this approach is not supported). The EPA analysis (as mentioned previously) used significantly less data and therefore the 75th percentile may be theoretically more defensible; however the FDEP analysis is favored due to its increased rigor. Note that although the FDEP analysis is favored over EPA, some refinement of the FDEP approach is needed. It must also be stated that ‘defensible' should not equate to ‘conservative'. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.117

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(4)(a)(ii) Calculation of Benchmark Distribution Approach and Selection of Percentiles From the Benchmark Distribution Statement: To compute the numeric criteria for the causal variables, TN, and TP, EPA is seeking comment on whether the 75th or 90th percentile of the benchmark distribution for each nutrient stream region should be selected. Comment: The FDEP has amassed a vast amount of data in compiling its IWR Database and, based on the amount of data available, it is believed that a 90th percentile is sufficiently adequate and defensible for setting nutrient criteria if the reference approach has to be utilized (recognizing that this approach is not supported). The EPA analysis (as mentioned previously) used significantly less data and therefore the 75th percentile may be theoretically more defensible; however the FDEP analysis is favored due to its increased rigor. Note that although the FDEP analysis is

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3536Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams favored over EPA, some refinement of the FDEP approach is needed. It must also be stated that ‘defensible’ should not equate to ‘conservative’.


# Comment ID 1836.001.056

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District Additionally, USEPA should use the 90th percentile of the distribution of benchmark sites as the threshold for the proposed criteria as this represents a more reasonable and appropriate threshold for protecting aquatic life and designated uses. 

# Comment ID 1919-1.001.021

Author Name: Standridge K. Organization: Earthjustice on behalf of Florida Wildlife Federation et al. 2. Comments on the Benchmark Distribution Approach as an alternative approach. Summary of Opinion: Application of the Guidance Manual's reference reach methodology to the remaining FDEP benchmark sites is a valid approach to developing numeric nutrient criteria for Florida rivers and streams. Earthjustice conducted a two part study. Part I of that study examines each of FDEP's benchmark sites to determine if they can appropriately be used as reference reaches for the purpose of applying EPA's reference reach methodology. Part II of the study applies EPA's reference reach methodology to the qualifying sites. This study is an attachment to the comments being separately submitted by Dr. William R. Wise on behalf of Earthjustice. It is Dr. Wise's opinion, based upon review of the study that the remaining sites identified by Earthjustice qualify under EPA guidance for use as reference reaches because they are "least-disturbed" streams even though they are not "pristine streams." It is also Dr. Wise's opinion that use of the 75th percentile obtained through application of a frequency distribution analysis is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Summary of Opinion: It is Dr. Wise's opinion that the proposed nutrient limits for freshwater streams set forth in the study were established in compliance with EPA's peer-reviewed guidance documents and provide an additional line of evidence that should be used by EPA in finalizing numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters in Florida. CONCLUSION: The results of the study and a comparison of the Florida Conservationists' proposed criteria and criteria proposed by EPA and FDEP are set forth below: Original comment letter contains additional information in the tables regarding Florida Conservationists’ Proposed Instream Criteria: Total Phosphorus, Florida Conservationists’ Proposed Instream Criteria: Total Nitrogen, Proposed Instream Criteria: Total Phosphorus, and Proposed Instream Criteria: Total Nitrogen on pages 13-14 of the pdf. See

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3537Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams original comment letter. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0909.001.003, 1292-1.001.081, 1344.001.006, 1433-1.001.006, 1476-2.001.070, 1695-1.001.012, 1761-3.001.131, 1777-2.001.100, 1836.001.056, 1476-1.001.012, 1671-3.001.093, 1805-3.001.117, 1919-1.001.021 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 existsand that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement. EPA received related but distinct comments that stressorresponse 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. For the final rule, other than the West Central Region, EPA is using the 90th percentile of the modified benchmark approach WBID averages within each region because of EPA’s confidence in the screening of that reference population. In the West Central, EPA is using the 75th percentile of SCI approach WBID averages because of reduced confidence in the quality of sites within that population and the reduced sample size. The details of this decision and analysis are included in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds using watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3538Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmark reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds using watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. The commenters suggest that independent application of multiple criteria will result in more reference sites exceeding the criteria. EPA disagrees. The first suggestion is that TN and TP do not co-vary. There is, of course, evidence for co-variation but substantial independence as well. This evidence actually supports the contention that both of these nutrients are a problem and that both require control. Second, the suggestion that both nutrients would need to be in excess to threaten uses is incorrect. Either excess N or excess P can cause nutrient related problems. There is ample evidence in the literature that TP and TN both limit productivity in stream systems (Elser et al.1990, Lohman et al. 1991, Francoeur 2001, Stelzer and Lamberti 2001, Elser et al. 2007). Reductions in both TN and TP are necessary, therefore, to control effects of excess productivity. EPA also disagrees that criteria are being set below limiting concentrations. Criteria are being set only at appropriate and protective concentrations. EPA argues that to the extent that samples from natural areas, including those with balanced flora and fauna, are reflected in the reference population and that an upper percentile of that population is being used, resultant criteria should minimize the risk of identifying concentrations that are limiting unless that condition is also supportive of designated uses. EPA disagrees with comments that assert impairment of reference sites based on error rate analyses described in the comments. EPA views the type of analysis suggested in the comment as inappropriate and flawed because these analyses proposed calculating error rates using traditional statistical assumptions about attainment and non-attainment. EPA observed that there are no true independent “attaining” or “non-attaining” populations upon which to test the criteria because criteria do not yet exist, therefore these tests are invalid. The concept of false positive and false negative rates is predicated on the assumption that an independent assessment of the attainment and non-attainment is available. For example, to estimate the false positive rate of a diagnostic test, physicians observe whether patients actually contract a disease. In the case of nutrient criteria, the reference distribution is the only means of defining attainment and non-attainment. Hence, any discussion of false positive or false negative rates is not relevant. As a result of the above comments, the concept of cumulative loss of reference sites for use in deriving criteria is negated. EPA agrees with comments in that our evaluation of FDEP's original benchmark approach did not provide us with sufficient confidence upon which to base nutrient criteria protective of aquatic life instream and downstream of the point of application of such criteria. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the benchmark approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3539Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula regions. That modified approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed land cover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. EPA recognizes the significant amount of work done by FDEP in selecting and vetting sites for its original regional benchmark distributions, considered the benchmark approach and for the final rule is using a version of it, but EPA's evaluation of the original FDEP benchmark approach did not provide EPA with sufficient confidence that all sites in the State's original benchmark distribution were unaffected by nitrogen/phosphorus pollution resulting from human activities and, therefore, developed a similar process but with more stringent screens. EPA posted in a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability an approach that uses this benchmark type approach similar to that developed by FDEP, but with the additional screens applied to candidate reference waters. Because EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting least-disturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified there. The criteria developed for the region defined by EPA as the West Central for the final rule (previously Bone Valley) were based on relatively higher prevailing ambient levels of nutrients, clearly influenced by the natural geology of the area, but also obviously affected to some degree by human disturbance. Having no reliable way in this region to distinguish contribution from an unacceptable level of disturbance, EPA developed criteria for this region consistent with a general reference approach used for the rest of the State, albeit using the SCI approach for selecting sites for the reasons detailed above. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Some of these comments also refer to the need for biological validation. 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. Requiring independent validation of biological impairment would, ostensibly, invalidate the need for protective nutrient criterion to protect aquatic life. The final numeric nutrient criteria established in this rule, therefore, will be the applicable criteria for the purposes of the CWA. The CWA does not provide for the implementation of these criteria contingent upon, or conditioned by, whether a specific waterbody meets or exceeds some other criteria. The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain water quality by regulating all pollutants that may compromise that integrity. To that end, each water quality criteria applies independently for the purpose of the CWA. Contrary to comments, EPA considered the FDEP study focused on the relationship between nutrient levels measured upstream in these watersheds and general conditions observed in associated downstream waters. While EPA found the study of interest and the data generally useful, EPA could not conclude from the data and information in this study that establishing nutrient criteria at the 90th percentile of the FDEP original benchmark site distributions for these or other regions would provide sufficient protection of downstream use. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the FDEP benchmark approach (see above response and final rule and final rule TSD for greater detail).

References:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3540Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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. Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542. Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429. Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643--657. Cross, W.F., J.B. Wallace, A.D. Rosemond, and S.L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565. Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427. Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158. Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477. 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 production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142. Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368. Gaiser, E.E., J.C. Trexler, J.H. Richards, D.L.Childers, D. Lee, A.L. Edwards, L.J. Scinto, K. Jayachandran, G.B. Noe, and R.D. Jones, 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723. Lohman, K., J.R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23. Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3541Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117. Notestein, S.K., T.K. Frazer, M.V. Hoyer, and D.E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G. S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386. Rosemond, A.D., P.J. Mulholland, and J.W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293. Rosemond, A.D., C.M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J.L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289. Slavik, K., B.J. Peterson, L. A. Deegan, W.B. Bowden, A.E. Hershey, J.E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939-954. Stelzer, R. S. and G.A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367. 

# III.C.4.Q.3 - ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES CONSIDERED BY EPA QUESTION 3 Comment ID 0678.001.006

Author Name: Adams C. Organization: And lastly, it's time to dispel the myth that pristine streams exist. There are none, and the reason EPA's number look low is because nutrient levels are too high everywhere. It's a skewed perception. 

# Comment ID 0726.001.005

Author Name: Price J. Organization: Rayonier

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3542Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The proposed rule has serious consequences for rural landowners. For example, Rayonier's forests are spread over seven major drainage basins. Under the proposed rule the majority of flowing waters in these regions will be labeled as impaired with nutrients, although many, if not all, are actually healthy. A finding of impairment can trigger new restrictions on land use and forest operations, further limiting the economic value of timber land ownership. Under the proposed rule landowners must either accept these restrictions or engage in extensive studies to prove that the nutrient criteria are wrong. 

# Comment ID 0964.001.005

Author Name: Price J. Organization: Rayonier The EPA is also concerned that forestry practices contribute to nutrient overenrichment. The state of Florida has one of the most aggressive Forestry Best Management Practices (BMP) programs in the nation. These requirements include standards for forest fertilization. Additionally, the Florida Division of Forestry does biannual compliance surveys using aerial selection techniques and detailed "on the ground" compliance monitoring. The results of these surveys indicate compliance rate percentages in the high 90's. The Florida DEP has also completed effectiveness studies across the state demonstrating that when forestry best management practices are used, they are effective at preventing water quality degradation. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.012

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District The exclusion of biologically healthy reference sites that have limited anthropogenic impacts or naturally low dissolved oxygen levels is not representative of the current environmental landscape in Northwest Florida. The intent of numeric nutrient criteria is to protect and restore water bodies to a healthy biological condition that meet designated use. The development of nutrient criteria should include consideration of the sites that have limited anthropogenic impacts and pass the SCI and other metrics for identifying healthy biologically diverse water bodies that meet the designated use. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.009

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. Section 7 provides robust information from peer-reviewed and other published literature sources that should resolve any concern EPA or other stakeholders have about the use of fertilizers in managed forests and the potential that such practices may have for affecting nutrient loads in benchmark streams. The findings from this literature strongly suggest

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3543Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams that fertilization of forests, when conducted in concert with Florida best management practices (BMPs), would not be expected to have a significant impact on nutrient loads. 

# Comment ID 1292-1.001.084

Author Name: Wiegand P. Organization: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 7.0 Use of Forest Fertilization is Not Expected to Significantly Influence Nutrient Levels in Florida Benchmark Streams Summary EPA has expressed concern that several FDEP benchmark sites have been affected by fertilization associated with forestry activities, yet there is no evidence indicating that nutrient concentrations in the FDEP reference streams reflect anthropogenic sources. Infrequent fertilizer use coupled with considerable research on appropriate fertilizer application techniques and development of forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) have shown that potential impacts of forest fertilization are generally subtle and short-lived. Main Technical Findings -EPA has expressed concern about the use of nutrients (fertilizers) in forests, specifically the potential for fertilizer use to influence nutrient loads in reference waterbodies. -A large body of published research has been devoted to the study of the effects of forest fertilization practices on stream nutrient loads. -Forest fertilization occurs very infrequently, usually two or three times during the 20+ year rotation of managed forests. -The large body of research suggests that when fertilizers are used in accordance with BMPs such as those in use in Florida, changes in stream nutrient loads are small in magnitude and of a short duration. Specific Comments and Corresponding Science Analysis Forest fertilization is an important, widespread silvicultural practice that increases tree survival and growth. Estimates of area in the South treated with fertilizers and herbicides vary widely (e.g., Siry 2002; Dubois et al. 2003; Fox et al. 2007), but generally suggest that <2% of forest area is treated annually. Fox et al. (2006) reported that approximately 1.2M acres of pine plantations in the Southeast were fertilized with P or N plus P in 2004. While fertilizers are applied to planted pine forests on private ownerships, those lands comprise only about 26.5% of southern timberland (Shepard et al. 2004). Although sufficient data are lacking, fertilizers are used less often on private non-corporate ownerships (60.0% of southern timberlands), with many forests receiving no applications, and they are used rarely on public lands (13.4%) (Smith et al. 2009). It is also important to note that fertilizer prices have dramatically increased in recent years, making operational fertilization costs prohibitive. This has resulted in many industrial

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3544Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams forestland owners scaling back the use of fertilizers. Fertilizers are generally applied early in a stand’s rotation. Depending on site characteristics, a forest stand’s potential to utilize N and P typically exceeds the available soil nutrient supply early in the rotation and stands generally respond positively to nutrient additions (Fox et al. 2006). Mid-rotation fertilization prescriptions of 150 to 200 lb/ac (27.5 to 36.7 kg/ha) N plus 25 lb/ac (4.6 kg/ha) P are typically used for loblolly and slash pine stands on forest sites in the Southeast (Fox et al. 2006). Forestry BMPs are effective at reducing the potential effects of fertilizer applications in forested watersheds. States use BMPs to protect aquatic systems from potential impacts associated with active forest management (Ellefson et al. 2001; Husak et al. 2005). All states in the South have published manuals that describe protocols, recommendations, or requirements for implementing BMPs before, during, and after forest management. Even though states have developed BMPs individually and specifics vary among them, overarching themes and recommendations are consistent, a phenomenon attributable to a common scientific understanding of forest water quality issues and control options (NCASI 2009b). BMP themes for states in the South include minimizing soil exposure and compaction, separating soil and chemicals from surface waters, providing watercourses with forested buffers, designing stable roads, and installing effective watercourse crossings. Florida, like all Southern states, has programs to monitor BMP implementation and the degree to which prescriptions are effective at controlling non-point source pollution (Kilgore et al. 2004; SGSF 2008). This includes BMPs that address forest chemical use, which generally includes pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Use of BMPs (e.g., forested buffers along streams) helps ensure that any increases are minor, short term, similar to those following natural disturbances, and within acceptable limits for drinking water quality (Ice 2004; McBroom et al. 2008). For example, in 2009 100% of all applicable BMPs were implemented when pesticide and fertilizer applications occurred in Florida (FDOF 2010). Furthermore, BMPs for special management zones (i.e., buffers along perennial and intermittent streams, lakes greater than two acres, and sinkholes) scored greater than 97% (FDOF 2010). Florida is the only state in the Southeast to establish fertilizer application limits for elemental N and P (NCASI 2009b). BMPs recommend that no more than 184 kg/ha N and 46 kg/ha P be applied during a 20 year period. During any three year period of a stand rotation, N and P fertilization may not exceed 45.6 and 14.7 kg/ha, respectively (FDOF 2008). No more than 14.7 kg/ha N may be applied during the initial two years of stand establishment. Another important BMP recommendation in Florida is the need for handling and application procedures that prevent spills and direct application of fertilizer materials into waterbodies. In addition to fertilizer application guidelines, the primary line of defense against fertilizer movement or delivery to waterbodies is using effective application techniques that limit drift or overspray. The Florida BMP manual recommends that forest managers account for site and weather conditions (e.g., soil type, slope, air temperature, precipitation, wind speed and direction) to minimize potential for fertilizer movement to streams via drift or runoff. A second line of defense involves establishing contiguous SMZs along the perimeter of waterbodies (NCASI 2009b). In general, buffer width should be proportional to slope, management practice, and the nature of the drainage (Comerford et al. 1992). While buffer effectiveness increases with buffer width, narrow buffers can still be effective filters (Binkley et al. 1999). In Florida, Vowell and Frydenborg (2004) reported that SMZ widths of 35 ft (10.6 m) were just as effective at protecting stream biota as wider SMZs (200 ft; 60.9 m) during forest management. Considerable effort has been put into research by the forest products industry to ensure safe and effective use of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3545Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams fertilizers. Multiple studies have documented that forested buffers or SMZs can prevent or reduce nutrient transport to surface waters via runoff and that forest fertilization poses little threat to stream water quality when properly conducted (NCASI 1991, 2001a). Studies in which nutrients are not directly applied to streams often result in lower concentrations of N and P (Binkley et al. 1999). However, a single direct application of fertilizer to a waterbody generally results in a short-term increase of nutrient concentrations, followed by dilution occurring over time and downstream. The effects of forest fertilization have been examined in several dozen case studies in North America (NCASI 1999). In general, forest fertilization commonly results in moderate, short-term increases in streamwater nutrient concentrations. Average annual nitrate (NO3-N) concentrations of fertilized forests remained below 0.5 mg/L in most cases. About 15% of the studies showed NO3-N concentrations above 0.5 mg/L after fertilization. The peak observed concentrations of nitrate were much higher in fertilized streams; about half of the studies found peak nitrate in excess of 1 mg/L and some exceeded 10 mg/L for short periods of time (this occurred mostly in situations where fertilizer fell or was applied directly into streams). Fertilization had no effect on annual average ammonium concentrations, although short-term peak concentrations reached 10 mg/L in cases where fertilizer application to streams occurred. Most of the streams in fertilization studies had less than 0.01 mg/L of P and fertilization either had no effect on the annual average concentration or increased the concentrations up to 0.02 mg/L. Peak P concentrations rose from 0.025 to 0.15 mg/L for short time periods in roughly half the studies examined. Two studies have examined the water quality response to forest fertilization in Florida, noting minimal effects on stream water quality. The Intensive Management Practices Assessment Center (IMPAC) in Florida initiated a study to investigate the effects of forest fertilization and herbicide application on water quality (Riekerk 1989). Six approximately 6 ha plots were established by harvesting a mature slash pine forest, preparing the site using chopping, burning, and bedding, then planting slash pine. Artificial watersheds were created using berms and ditching. Three plots served as controls, while the remaining three received annual fertilizer and herbicide treatments for four years. Fertilizer treatments were 225 kg/ha N, 90 kg/ha P, and 45 kg/ha Ca. Applications were ground based and included a 10 ft (3 m) untreated buffer around streams and wetlands. The treatments resulted in elevated NH4-N in the first and fourth years of application. Elevated levels of P were not observed until the fourth year of the study, a year with unusually high precipitation. Peak NH4-N and P concentrations in the control treatment averaged 1.1 and 0.23 mg/L compared to 1.5 and 0.70 mg/L, respectively, for the treatment plots. Fisher (1981) described the effects of forest management (timber harvesting, site preparation, and replanting) on the hydrology and water quality of a slash pine flat woods site in western Florida. The site was fertilized with 40 kg/ha N and 50 kg/ha P. Runoff volume was increased during the first year post-treatment, but by year two most water quality parameters had returned to near-background levels. Pretreatment average annual concentrations of NO3-N and NH4-N averaged below 0.1 mg/L. Organic N concentrations averaged 0.9 mg/L. Ground-based fertilization that avoided streams resulted in maximum concentrations of 0.1 mg/L NO3-N, 0.4 mg/L NH4-N, and 2.7 mg/L organic N. The minor effects of forest management operations on water chemistry for those sites were attributed to their relatively flat topography and deep, sandy soils. Several other fertilization studies conducted across the Southeast have also reported minor, short-term influences on water quality. Beltran et al. (2010) evaluated the effects of fertilization on water quality at a low-gradient, flat woods pine plantation in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3546Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Carteret County, NC. This paired watershed study consisted of three watersheds, two mature (31 year old) stands and one young (8 year old) stand. One of the mature stands was thinned in 2002, while the other mature stand acted as a control watershed. Treatment watersheds were aerially fertilized, with ditches (i.e., ephemeral watercourses) avoided. The young watershed received a total of 118 kg/ha N and 12 kg/ha P, while the mature-thinned watershed received 175 kg/ha N and 17 kg/ha P. Flow and nutrient concentrations were measured during three periods: pre-fertilization (January 2004 to August 2005), post-fertilization 1 (September to October 2005), and post-fertilization 2 (November 2005 to March 2007). Three rain events (208 mm in 38 hrs, 197 mm in 48 hrs, and 46 mm in 21 hrs) within 47 days of fertilization provided a “worst case scenario” for nutrient export from the treatment watershed. Results showed that average nutrient concentrations in the initial days after fertilization significantly exceeded levels within the controlwatershed. Nitrate concentrations remained below the EPA drinking water threshold of 10 mg/L even during postfertilization 1, peaking at 4.2 mg/L NO3-N. Both NH4-N and TP also peaked during this period at 4.7 mg/L and 0.96 mg/L, respectively. The authors concluded that increased nutrient export was short-lived, with concentrations and loadings returning to pre-fertilization levels three months after fertilization. McBroom et al. (2008) evaluated the effects of silvicultural practices with application of BMPs on stream water quality in east Texas. Two forest management regimes were implemented in 2002: (1) conventional, with clearcutting and herbicide site preparation; and (2) intensive, which added sub-soiling, aerial broadcast fertilization, and an additional herbicide application. Effects from the study were compared to results from a study on the same small watersheds in 1981 that evaluated two combinations of harvesting and mechanical site preparation without BMPs. The fertilized watershed, a 5 year old loblolly plantation, was treated with 280 kg/ha DAPS in August 2002 followed by herbicide release in September. Fertilization increased runoff losses in 2003 on the intensive small watersheds by an additional 0.77 kg/ha NO3-N, 2.33 kg/ha TKN, and 0.36 kg/ha TP. Loss rates of NH4-N and NO3-N were low and accounted for only ~7% of the N applied through fertilization. Mean loss rates from treated watersheds were much lower than rainfall inputs of about 5 kg/ha TKN and NO3-N in 2003. Study results indicated that intensive silvicultural practices that include BMPs do not significantly impair surface water quality. Liechty et al. (1999) reported the effects of two fertilization treatments. Treatments included an aerial application of 437 kg/ha of urea (treatment 1) and 140 kg/ha DAP (treatment 2) to a 150 ha watershed in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. While fertilizer was not applied to SMZs on perennial streams, applications did occur to ephemeral and intermittent streams. Following treatment 1, pretreatment NO3-N (0.30 mg/L) and NH4-N (<0.01 mg/L) peaked at 3.58 mg/L and 4.91 mg/L, respectively. Peak concentrations occurred 24 hours after application following a large storm event. Total organic N peaked at 44.5 mg L-1 after urea application. Treatment 2 resulted in less dramatic effects on stream N concentrations. Maximum NO3-N concentrations (1.37 mg/L) occurred 6 hours after application, and concentrations were below detection limits 30 hours after application. Treatment 2 resulted in lower N concentrations because less elemental N was applied in the DAP and there was not a significant storm event following application. A similar study on poorly drained loamy soil also in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina was implemented by Herrmann and White (1996). One of a pair of 6 year old loblolly pine plantations was aerially fertilized (there was no avoidance of the ditch system) with rates of 215 kg/ha N and 35 kg/ha P as urea and DAP, respectively. One tract served as a control. Baseline nutrient concentrations from drainage water for two years preceding the study ranged from <0.02 to 0.23 mg/L NH4-N, <0.01 to 0.07 mg/L NO3-N, <0.5 to 1.1 mg/L TN, and <0.01 to 0.07 mg/L TP. Maximum nutrient concentrations occurred within one week after fertilization and returned to control levels after 30 weeks. Concentrations of NH4-N and P peaked soon after fertilization at 3.7 mg/L NH4-N, 13.9 mg/L TN, and 1.11 mg/L TP. About 12 weeks after fertilization NO3-N concentrations peaked at 0.12 mg/L. The authors estimated that direct input of fertilizer into

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3547Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams stream channels accounted for 70 to 80% of the nutrient export from fertilization because drainage ditches were not avoided. Fromm and Herrmann (1996) utilized the same forest stands as Herrmann and White (1996); however, fertilization occurred with ground-based equipment at a rate of 210 kg/ha N and 35 kg/ha P as urea and DAP, respectively. Maximum pretreatment concentrations of N and P in stream flow from the fertilized watershed were lower than concentrations from the control treatment. Peak NO3-N, NH4-N, organic N, and PO4-P in the control watershed averaged 0.7, 0.11, 1.1, and 0.18 mg/L, respectively. Nitrate-N concentrations in the treatment watershed peaked at 1.0 mg/L. Concentrations of NH4-N, organic N, and PO4-P peaked at 0.12, 1.1, and 0.07 mg/L, respectively. The authors concluded that no export occurred because fertilizer application was ground-based, care was taken to avoid fertilizing the drainage system, and dry weather followed application. Campbell (1989) reported effects on stream water quality after operationally fertilizing a 15 year old loblolly pine stand in the North Carolina Coastal Plain with 170 kg/ha N and 28 kg/ha P as urea and DAP using ground-based equipment. Baseline nutrient concentrations from plantation outflows prior to fertilization were 0.06 mg/L NH4-N, 0.58 mg/L NO3-N, 0.9 mg/L TN, and 0.04 mg/L dissolved P. Daily measurements for 30 days after fertilization found maximum concentrations of 3.8 mg/L NH4-N, 9.3 mg/L TN, and 0.18 mg/L dissolved P. During the entire pre- and post-treatment period NO3-N ranged from 0 to 1.2 mg/L. Nutrient levels returned to pretreatment levels within three weeks after fertilization. Aubertin et al. (1973) applied 260 kg/ha urea-N fertilizer to a 13 year old naturally regenerated hardwood forest (74 ha) at the Fernow Experimental Forest in West Virginia. Streams were not avoided. Before application, nutrient concentrations in stream flow were moderately high for eastern hardwood forests, with 0.15 mg/L NH4-N and 0.7 mg/L NO3-N. Fertilization raised average NO3-N concentrations to 4.9 mg/L, with a peak of 20 mg/L four months after fertilization. About 1% of the samples (11/829 after fertilization) exceeded the EPA drinking water standard of 10 mg/L NO3-N. Concentrations of NH4-N responded only slightly, but the high output of NO3-N accounted for about 20% of the added fertilizer. Helvey et al. (1989) and Edwards et al. (1991) reported on another fertilization experiment at Fernow. The researchers applied a heavy dose of N (335 kg/ha NH4NO3) and P (45 kg/ha P as triple superphosphate) in two watersheds. They found no fertilization effect on P concentrations in streamwater (annual averages of <0.04 mg/L for all treatments), but annual average NO3-N concentration increased from 5 to 11 mg/L. A fourth fertilization experiment at Fernow tested the possible effects of acidic deposition of N and sulfer (S) (Adams et al. 1997). Fertilization rates were 35 kg N and 40 kg S as ammonium sulfate applied annually for 5 years (total input 175 kg/ha N, 200 kg/ha S). This treatment had no effect on NH4-N concentrations in streamwater (<0.001 mg/L for control and treated watersheds). Nitrate concentrations increased from 0.8 to 1.7 mg/L in the fertilized watersheds, compared to 0.8 to 1.1 mg/L in the control. Concentrations of NO3-N peaked in the fertilized watershed at 3.9 mg/L. It is important to note that the fertilization experiments conducted by Aubertine et al. (1973), Helvey et al. (1989), Edwards et al. (1991), and Adams et al. (1997) at the Fernow Experimental Forest were not designed to test the possible effects of forest fertilization as an operational practice in the Eastern hardwoods region. Rather, those studies were conducted in order to simulate atmospheric deposition and monitor the effects. These hardwood forests are not N limited, and operational forest management regimes do not include fertilization of such forests (Binkley et al. 1999).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3548Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The lessons learned from these fertilization studies have helped forest managers assess effects and develop management strategies that limit potential consequences of nutrients in runoff following fertilization. Another important lesson from these studies is that geology and vegetation can have major influences on water quality regardless of fertilizer applications. In many cases disturbance events (e.g., wildfire, tropical storms) can disrupt nutrient cycling, and in some cases can increase mineralization and nutrient availability for leaching or runoff more than fertilizer application does. Even in recently disturbed systems most inputs of N and P are retained in the watershed (NCASI 2001a). Retention of inputs from fertilizer applications appears to be even greater for established stands. As evidenced by Liechty et al. (1999) and several others, measured impacts on nutrient concentrations are attenuated downstream by dilution. In addition, nutrient uptake by instream primary producers or transformation through biogeochemical processes strongly influences nutrient form (organic vs. inorganic) and fate (bioavailable or not). Evaluating biological responses to nutrient additions are, therefore, complex and depend on factors such as temperature, turbulence, and light availability in addition to nutrient concentration or load. Evaluating biological responses to nutrient additions are, therefore, complex and depend on factors such as temperature, turbulence, and light availability in addition to nutrient concentration or load.



# Comment ID 1304-1.001.046

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. Silvicultural Practices EPA has expressed concern that several FDEP benchmark sites have been affected by fertilization associated with forestry activities, yet there is no evidence indicating that nutrient concentrations in the FDEP reference streams reflect anthropogenic sources. Infrequent fertilizer use coupled with considerable research on appropriate fertilizer application techniques and development of forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) have shown that potential impacts of forest fertilization are generally subtle and short-lived. Both NCASI and FDEP provide strong technical reports indicating that the concerns expressed by the Agency are not founded in science. FDEP states in its comments concerning the proposed criteria that "The existence of forest land use is expected to reduce nutrient concentrations", and thus provide an overall nutrient sink rather than a source of nutrients. FDEP Review at Page 21 The comments prepared by NCASI present a compelling body of research indicating that "when fertilizers are used in accordance with BMPs like those in use in Florida, changes in stream nutrient loads are small in magnitude and of a short duration." (NCASI at Section 7.0) It should also be mentioned that FDEP has verified that "...silviculture operations in Florida follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) that have been demonstrated to protect aquatic life use support in adjacent streams." (FDEP Review at Page 16)



# Comment ID 1340.001.002

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3549Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Price J. Organization: Rayonier In the proposed nutrient rule, EPA expressed concern that the practice of forest fertilization is a significant contributor to nutrients in flowing waters. Specifically the EPA is ready to reject some of the FDEP referenced sites based on allegations that fertilizer application to forest land has created a continuous source of nutrients that are impacting water quality. Underlying those allegations were a couple of tree nursery research projects that demonstrate what we all know to be true, under the right conditions pine tees will grow better if they are fertilized. However, to go from that simple fact to the EPA's current position is a leap to an unsupportable conclusion. 

# Comment ID 1340.001.005

Author Name: Price J. Organization: Rayonier Effective studies performed by the FDEP consistently demonstrate the presence of high quality aquatic systems and forest lands when Best Management Practices are in place. The Florida forest community has been a leader in protecting water quality and Florida BMPs are highly regarded across the region and even the nation. And that brings us back to the subject of the FDEP reference streams which are all located within forestry watersheds across the state. Some of these watersheds include timber tracts that were fertilized within the past 20 years. EPA has expressed concerns that these sites have been affected by fertilization associated with forestry activities, yet there's no evidence indicating that nutrient concentrations in the reference streams reflect nutrient (inaudible). In fact, these sites are characterized by high quality aquatic environments. If there really is a problem in these locations, we'd like to know about it. So far, all the evidence only serves to demonstrate that targeted fertilizer use coupled with forestry Best Management Practices are highly effective in protecting water quality. As this rulemaking process moves to completion, Rayonier would urge EPA to address forestry questions based on careful consideration of the evidence, including demonstrated cause and effect relationships. Thank you very much. 

# Comment ID 1350-1.001.019

Author Name: Schwartz J. Organization: American Forest & Paper Association

• Forest Application of Fertilizer Has Subtle and Short-Lived Potential Impacts: \ EPA has raised concerns in the record about the forest application of fertilizers and potential for that application to influence nutrient loads in reference waterbodies. As indicated in the NCASI comments, peer reviewed studies demonstrate, however, that forest fertilizers are applied relatively infrequently, and that when applied consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs), the potential impacts on nutrient levels in receiving stream are "subtle and short lived." [8] [8] NCASI Comments, Section 7.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3550Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1414-1.001.010

Author Name: Poltak R. Organization: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 7) EPA should recognize that aquatic systems can only rarely return to a pre-existing state or equilibrium. The criteria in the Proposed Rule focus on managing enrichment toward pre-existing or reference conditions. This approach does not account for human presence that has permanently altered most ecosystems from the effects of watershed uses and climate change. Failure to account for human presence may misdirect management efforts or set unrealistic goals. Practicable and viable guidance should include methods that strive to achieve a least disturbed condition (LDe) rather than a reference condition or statistically defined change in the data. LDC represents a scientifically defensible endpoint that fits within the tiered aquatic life use and biological condition gradient concept that is supported by EPA in that it works toward setting a realistic management goal for a waterbody that achieves the best possible conditions given today's state of the landscape and resources available. This approach not only provides a viable and more expeditious means for improving nutrient-affected waters, but would also help to preserve and protect those waterbodies where there is minimal disturbance - a primary goal of any water management program that is missing in the Proposed Rule. 

# Comment ID 1434-1.001.023

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors T20 III C(4, 5) The HSWCD agrees with EPA's concerns regarding the FDEP benchmark distribution approach for reference sites over the use of a true reference stream approach. The potential for man-influenced disturbance of in-stream benchmarks that appear undisturbed to skew the data for a given stream is high and should be avoided where possible. {p. 4196, comment requested} 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.025

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. U.S. EPA (2010a, p. 4196) expressed reservations about use of benchmark distributions because of uncertainty that the approach would represent truly least-disturbed conditions: "Specifically, EPA is concerned that nutrient concentrations at these sites may reflect anthropogenic sources (e.g., sources more than 100 meters away from and/or

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3551Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 10 kms upstream of the segment), even if the sites appear least-disturbed on a local basis." Sources such as atmospheric deposition in some areas would be expected to exacerbate this problem (e.g. Winchester and Fu 1992, Pollman et al. 2002). As FDEP (2009a, p.8) pointed out, "a disadvantage in using the benchmark approach is that it does not identify the specific nutrient levels at which biological impairment occurs." FDEP (Feb. 2010a, p.5) also acknowledged that many of the benchmark reference streams selected in this approach would not attain U.S. EPA's (2010a) proposed in-stream protection values and, instead, would be considered impaired: "In particular, 40% of the DEP [benchmark] reference streams in the Panhandle will fail EPA's proposed TP criteria, and 47% of the reference streams in the North Central and Peninsula Nutrient Watershed Regions will fail EPA's proposed TN criteria." Based on an analysis of network data, FDEP (2010b, p.12) reported that the Peninsula and areas of the Panhandle would have fewer than 60% of waterbodies that attained U.S. EPA's (2010a) draft instream-protective value (IPV) for TN and TP, while the Bone Valley region would have more than 70% of waterbodies that could meet the draft U.S. EPA nutrient criteria. The observation that many of FDEP's benchmark reference streams would violate U.S. EPA's (2010a) draft criteria is not surprising, given the likelihood that the benchmark approach includes streams affected by anthropogenic nutrient sources that are more than 100 meters away from and/or 10 kilometers upstream from the segment. 

# Comment ID 1477-1.001.013

Author Name: Rudd F. Organization: Florida Engineering Society EPA's selection of criteria for reference waters focus solely on whether aquatic life use is attained. EPA should a use a more stringent site selection process which excludes sites with potential anthropogenic sources of nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1481-1.001.024

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department III C(4, 5) Highlands County agrees with EPA's concerns regarding the FDEP benchmark distribution approach forreference sites over the use of a true reference stream approach. The potential for man influenced disturbance of instream benchmarks that appear undisturbed to skew the data for a given stream is high and should be avoided where possible. {p. 4196, comment requested} 

# Comment ID 1532-1.001.010

Author Name: Stacey P. Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3552Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Aquatic systems can only rarely return to a pre-existing state or equilibrium. The proposed criteria focus on managing enrichment towards pre-existing or reference conditions. It does not account for human presence when it has permanently altered ecosystems from effects of watershed uses and climate change. It does not consider the hysteresis effect, as pointed out by one of the peer reviewers, to which EPA responded, "This has been addressed to the extent practicable given data limitations." A more quantitative assessment is warranted. Also, many waterbodies have undergone physical alterations (e.g., an impoundment on a river) that have changed their susceptibility to nutrient enrichment. Expectations that these artificial systems can attain conditions similar to undeveloped watersheds, free flowing steams or natural lakes are not supported in the TSD and are likely unrealistic. Failure to account for human presence sets unrealistic goals that may misdirect management efforts. Practicable and viable guidance should include methods that strive to achieve a best attainable condition (BAC) by accounting for watershed and waterbody modifications and the realities of human presence rather than a reference condition or statistically defined change in the data. BAC represents a scientifically defensible endpoint that fits within the tiered aquatic life and biological condition gradient concept supported by EPA in that it works toward setting a realistic management goal for a waterbody that achieves the best possible conditions given today's state of the landscape, and resources available to effect change when warranted. A BAC approach not only provides a viable and more expeditious means for setting management targets that will improve nutrient-affected waters, but would also help to preserve and protect those waterbodies where there is minimal disturbance - a primary consideration for any water management program, but is missing in the Rule. BACs, like TMDLS, are also best established through site-specific evaluation to capture both the uniqueness of each waterbody's ecosystem, as well as the effects of modification and landscape change and the degree to which they can be offset. This is a much preferable and realistic approach than Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) and, using GIS technologies and principles that are readily transferred from watershed to watershed, can be applied to a range of situations represented in technically "unimpaired" watersheds to reduce degradation and even improve condition, as well as to those that may already be impaired. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.027

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2. Protectiveness Associated with DEP Benchmark Sites The Clean Water Act directs States to establish water quality standards to protect the designated use, in this case, healthy, well balanced aquatic communities. DEP followed an extensive process to identify candidate reference sites and then demonstrated that the nutrient reference sites had optimal habitat, healthy invertebrates, and no issues with algal or plant biomass. However, in an abundance of caution, DEP conducted site visits and biological assessments, and omitted sites with greater than minimal landscape disturbance near the stream or sites where biological conditions that did not meet the use. As a result of this vetting process, DEP can confidently conclude that the nutrient concentrations of the reference site population were characteristic of the levels needed to sustain the designated aquatic life use support.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3553Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

EPA's questions about DEP benchmark sites imply that the CWA directs states to establish criteria based on conditions that occurred prior to human inhabitation of North America. For example, EPA rejected some DEP benchmark sites as too disturbed by humans for use as nutrient reference sites based on poorly defined concerns about landscape disturbance. However, DEP evaluated both the land uses and biological condition of each site (detailed evaluations of each site were previously provided to EPA) and demonstrated, through actual field observations and sampling, that these sites were characterized by benign land uses. Further, sites used by DEP could be characterized as having "healthy to exceptionally healthy" biological communities. EPA previously expressed concerns about DEP's initial screening process to develop candidate reference sites. DEP used the Landscape Development Intensity Index (LDI), which is highly correlated with biological health, within a 100 meter corridor as a starting point for candidate reference site selection. DEP selected an LDI of 2 as a screening level because there is no trend in the relationship between SCI score and LDI for LDI values below 2 (see Figure 10 and DEP's Technical Support Document (TSD)). The use of a 100 meter natural buffer as a factor that would mitigate nutrient inputs is clearly established in the literature, and a review of this information was included in DEP's TSD. As noted in the TSD, the farther a particular land use is to a stream, the less influential that land use has on the stream. The literature (specifically including EPA sources) also clearly indicates that riparian buffer zones are very effective in reducing nutrient inputs to near natural background levels. However, in an abundance of caution, DEP rejected many sites that met the preliminary criterion of <2 LDI to be certain of the "minimal disturbance" goal.



# Comment ID 1671-3.001.031

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3. Comments on EPA's Concern that Silviculture Impacts Reference Sites EPA specifically requested comments on whether some of DEP's reference or benchmark sites were impacted by fertilization for silviculture operations. However, DEP conclusively addressed this concern previously, and would like to reiterate the key points that demonstrate that silviculture operations do not impact the suitability of the benchmark sites. EPA was previously concerned that the LDI coefficient for silviculture (1.6) did not include fertilization as part of the Emergy calculation, and that this oversight makes forestry operations a more adverse land use than the LDI would indicate. However, University of Florida Professor, Mark Brown, confirmed on 9- 30-09 that forest fertilization was accounted for in the LDI calculation and that an application rate of Total Phosphorus of 142 pounds/acre over a 25-year rotation was assumed (Doherty 1995, Pritchett 1983). To objectively test EPA's concern that forestry operations increase nutrients in adjacent streams, DEP assembled data from the Peninsula and Panhandle reference sites and performed regression analyses on the percent silviculture in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3554Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams each basin against nutrient concentration (Figures 11-14). Percent silviculture was calculated based on the most recent (2004) landuse coverage. The results clearly indicate that the percent silviculture in each basin did not increase either the TP or TN, and in fact, there was a non-significant decreasing trend between the percent silviculture and nutrients in three cases. DEP also conducted a Mann-Whitney comparison of TP and TN at high and low silviculture sites in the Peninsula (Figures 15 and 15a). Results from the DEP Mann-Whitney test, using objective criteria (% silviculture in each reference site basin), demonstrated that EPA's concerns regarding silviculture effects on the nutrient regime in reference site is unfounded, and that there is no increase in nutrients in reference sites associated with silviculture. It should be noted that silviculture operations in Florida follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) that have been demonstrated to protect aquatic life use support in adjacent streams. The effectiveness of silviculture BMPs was documented in a peer reviewed "Before-After-Control-Impact" Forestry Best Management Practices Study conducted by DEP (Vowell, J. L. and R. B. Frydenborg. 2004. A biological assessment of best management practice effectiveness during intensive silviculture and forest chemical application. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: Focus 4:297-307). The following is an excerpt from the DEP report of the study, which sampled streams upstream and downstream of five representative forestry sites, both before and after the forests were harvested and chemically treated, following established BMPs. Note that this study, which was based on an earlier version of the SCI, used triplicate sampling and Analysis of Variance to determine potential effects of silviculture, including herbicide and fertilizer applications. The results clearly demonstrate that, when forestry operations follow the BMPs, silviculture is a benign land use, including operations that apply fertilizer. Original comment letter contains additional information in figure Figure 11. Geometric mean TP vs. % Silviculture in the Peninsula. The near field drainage includes the drainage area within 10 km upstream of the sample station. Note that there is no increase in TP with % Silviculture in Peninsular reference sites and Figure 12. Geometric mean TN vs. % Silviculture in the Peninsula. The near field drainage includes the drainage area within 10 km upstream of the sample station. Note that there appears to be a decrease in TN with % Silviculture in Peninsular reference sites from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 13. Geometric mean TP vs. % Silviculture in the Panhandle. and Figure 14. Geometric mean TN vs. % Silviculture in the Panhandle and Figure 14. Geometric mean TN vs. % Silviculture in the Panhandle. The near field drainage includes the drainage area within 10 km upstream of the sample station. Note that there appears to be a decrease in TN with % Silviculture in Panhandle reference sites from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 15. Mann-Whitney U Test comparing TP at low silviculture reference sites (<10 % silviculture) with TP at high silviculture sites (>40% silviculture) and Figure 15a. Mann-Whitney U Test comparing TN at low silviculture reference sites (<10 % silviculture) with TN at high silviculture sites (>40% silviculture) from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.037

Author Name: Brooks J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3555Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection The Forestry BMP Study concluded:

• Habitat quality was in the "optimal" category at all sites, both before and after silviculture activities.

• The BMPs appeared successful in controlling erosion, since no additional habitat smothering or stream bank instability was noted after silviculture operations took place.

• There appeared to be no major changes in physical-chemical measurements due to silviculture activities. Turbidity was low at all sites. During an intense rain in February, 1997, direct observation at Jack Branch indicated that no turbid water from the clear-cut site was reaching the stream.

• Nutrients were relatively low at all sites, both before and after the forestry operations. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.073

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 5. Responses to Specific Reference Site Criticisms The DEP prepared the following descriptions of specific reference sites in response to EPA comments on the DEP's draft numeric nutrient criteria. Stevens Branch- FDEP's technical support document shows that this site is minimally disturbed. The site had an exceptional SCI score with no algal or plant issues and a very high habitat assessment score. While there are some silviculture operations in the watershed (outside of the 100 meter buffer), direct site observations by field biologists indicated no direct inputs from silviculture to the stream. Furthermore, as discussed previously, silviculture is a benign land use in Florida as a result of high compliance with Forestry BMPs (98%). The nitrate levels were 0.01 mg/L in Stevens Branch - which further supports that silviculture has not impacted stream nutrient levels. According to EPA, this site was included on the 1994 303(d) list, but it was not assessed due to lack of data. DEP subsequently determined that, during the verified period (1999-2006), the area was not impaired for chlorophyll-a and all other parameters were placed in category 3b due to insufficient data. While there was one exceedance of the DO criteria out of eleven samples and iron levels were sometimes elevated, low DO and high iron are often associated with the swampy conditions of Stevens Branch. Cow Creek - Direct field observations indicated that human activities (silviculture) were beyond an extensive buffer zone and do not appear to be impacting the stream health or the nutrient levels. Habitat was optimal, and no algal or plant issues were evident. The nitrate levels were 0.04 mg/L in Cow Creek. If the nutrient levels were affected by fertilization of forests, then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in Cow Creek are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. EPA claimed that DO was an issue in the creek, but FDEP's 2002 TMDL update listed DO as 3c (no

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3556Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams causative pollutant). The site meets standards for numerous other parameters. During the 2000-2007 verified period, six DO excursions occurred out of 33 samples (therefore, it was not impaired for DO). The site was also not impaired for chlorophyll a. Orange Creek - This is one of the few sites in the Peninsula where stoneflies are found. The SCI (74) was in the exceptional category, clearly supporting the designated use. Orange Lake is a DEP reference lake, with healthy LVI and chlorophyll near 20 ug/L (paleolimnology at nearby Lake Wauberg indicate that up to 40 ug/K chlorophyll may be a natural background condition in this area). The majority of the watershed is forested, and direct observation indicates extensive riparian buffer zones and that water from potentially adverse activities does not reach the stream through surface water pathways. Habitat was optimal, and no algal or plant issues were evident. The nitrate levels are 0.09 mg/L in Orange Creek. If the nutrient levels were affected by human land uses, then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in Orange Creek are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. Currently, this waterbody is on the G1C2 Verified List for DO with TN listed as the causative pollutant, and DEP believes this to be an error. The median BOD is 2.15 mg/L and the stream is characterized by exceptional biological health. Orange Creek is not impaired for nutrients based on chlorophyll a. The mean of 44 chlorophyll a (corrected) values was 1.24 ug/L. The absence of algal or plant biomass (not observed in the stream), coupled with low chlorophyll and low BOD, indicates no causative link between the TN (natural in these blackwater streams) and DO. Withlacoochee R @ 471 - The very undisturbed Green Swamp forms the headwaters of this system, and streams in the area are naturally low in DO due to sluggish flows and leaf litter decomposition. There were no ditches and no "ranchettes" observed during field visits. Habitat was optimal, and no algal or plant issues were evident. The nitrate levels are 0.02 mg/L in Withlacoochee R @ 471. If the nutrient levels were affected by human land uses, then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in Withlacoochee R @ 471are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. Econlockhatchee River - This Site had healthy SCI scores and a very low LDI (1.1). Minimal periphyton growth was observed and fish were abundant. EPA had previously asserted that the TP levels at the Snowhill Road site were influenced by inputs from the Little Econlockhatchee River. To test this, DEP evaluated TP data from the Big Econlockhatchee at Pickett Lake Road, which is located approximately five miles upstream of the Little Econlockhatchee, and compared it with TP data from the Snowhill Road location, located approximately six miles downstream from the Little Econlockhatchee. A two-sided Students t-test was conducted, and the results indicated no statistically significant difference in the TP concentrations between the two sites (although there were only three observations at the Pickett lake Rd. site). The nitrate levels observed at the Snowhill Rd. site (0.15 mg/L) are well below than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. Although EPA has listed this site as impaired for nutrients, DO, BOD, and coliforms in 2002, there is no information provided on potential sources by EPA. DEP has delisted the waterbody, placing DO in category 4c and Category 2 for various other parameters (22, including most metals). The Econlockhatchee is only impaired for mercury, based on fish consumption advisories. DEP's mercury TMDL study has shown that oligotrophic, high DOC waters are most susceptible to biological magnification of atmospherically deposited mercury. Bee Branch - Direct observation showed that the majority of the area consisted of wet or dry prairie. Following the DEP standard practices for site recons, an area of citrus groves upstream of the site was scrutinized, and staff walked along

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3557Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the riparian buffer and confirmed that no direct runoff from the citrus was reaching the site. Further, the site was biologically healthy as evidenced by the SCI, and direct observation indicated there were no issues with algae or adverse aquatic plants. The nitrate levels are 0.05 mg/L in Bee Branch. If the nutrient levels were affected by human land uses (in this case, citrus), then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in Bee Branch are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. Cypress Branch @78 - Direct observations at the site indicated that extensive riparian buffers were present, commonly > 1000 m. Most of the observed land use was native prairie and pine forest. The SCI indicated healthy biology, habitat was optimal, and no algal or aquatic plant issues were observed. The nitrate levels are 0.03 mg/L in Cypress Br @78. If the nutrient levels were affected by human land uses, then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in Cypress Br @78 are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. St. Johns River @ Deland - DEP staff confirmed in the field that the point source discharge was downstream of the reference site, and only data upstream from this site was used. DEP staff concluded from site observations that this location was influenced only by very low levels of anthropogenic stressors and no adverse algal or aquatic plant issues were present. The nitrate levels are 0.07 mg/L in St. Johns @ Deland. If the nutrient levels were affected by human land uses, then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in St. Johns @ Deland are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. Moses Creek - Field observations indicated no direct runoff from forestry operations. This site had healthy SCIs, optimal habitat, and no algal or aquatic plant issues. The nitrate levels are 0.01 mg/L in Moses Ck. If the nutrient levels were affected by human land uses, then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in Moses are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. Steinhatchee River - DEP site visits indicated extensive riparian buffer zones, healthy biology, and no adverse algal or aquatic plant effects. The nitrate levels ranged from 0.01 to 0.03 mg/L in the Steinhatchee R. If the nutrient levels were affected by human land uses, then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in Steinhatchee R. are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. Little Orange Creek - This site had an SCI score (89), in the exceptional category, and no algal or aquatic plant issues. This is one of the few Peninsula sites where sensitive stoneflies are present. DEP sampled Redwater Lake and found the Lake Vegetation Index (72) there to be clearly healthy, meaning the lake also supports biological integrity. Field observations indicated that there were no direct inputs from potentially adverse land uses. The nitrate levels are 0.02 mg/L in Little Orange Ck. If the nutrient levels were affected by human land uses, then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in Little Orange Ck. are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. Waccasassa River - This site had an exceptional SCI (69), showing full support of designated use. EPA scientists visited the entire system with DEP staff, from upstream sites to the estuary, and all confirmed that it is a minimally

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3558Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams disturbed system. Field observations indicated that there were no direct inputs from potentially adverse land uses. See discussion of forestry BMP practices above. The nitrate levels are 0.02 mg/L in Waccasassa R. If the nutrient levels were affected by human land uses, then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in Waccasassa R. are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. Withlacoochee River @ Stokes Ferry and Trails End - Field observations indicated that there were no direct inputs from potentially adverse land uses. Withlacoochee @ Stokes Ferry had an SCI score (69), in the exceptional category, and both sites had no algal or aquatic plant issues. The nitrate levels range from 0.02 mg/L to 0.1 in these Withlacoochee R sites. If the nutrient levels were affected by human land uses, then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in Withlacoochee R. are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. Blackwater Creek and Tosohatchee Creek - Blackwater Creek has an exceptional (77) SCI score but due to swamp-like conditions, an SCI could not be performed at the Tosohatchee. Both sites had no algal or aquatic plant issues. The nitrate levels range from 0.01 mg/L in Tosohatchee to 0.13 in the Blackwater Ck. If the nutrient levels were affected by human land uses, then the most notable nutrient, because of its solubility in water and ability to transport through groundwater, is nitrate. The nitrate levels observed in Tosohatchee and Blackwater Creek are significantly lower than the proposed protective 0.35 mg/L nitrate criterion. Benchmark Site Conclusions A complete list of an evaluation of DEP Benchmark Sites in relation to 303(d) listing is presented in Appendix F. In summary, DEP has followed a well defined, objective approach for establishing minimally disturbed reference sites. EPA's peer reviewers supported DEP's approach as reasonable and scientifically defensible. The information presented in the DEP Nutrient TSD and in this document provides credible evidence that the nutrient concentrations of the thoroughly vetted DEP reference site population are characteristic of the levels needed to sustain aquatic life use support.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3559Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.132

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Statement: EPA solicits comment on this issue and more generally on whether the benchmark sites identified by FDEP in its July 2009 proposal are an appropriate set of least- disturbed sites on which to base the criteria calculations. Comment: The FDEP benchmark streams for IPVs seem reasonable in several ways. The FDEPs inclusion of sites near silviculture regions is justified by their supporting data. The FDEP also included many benchmark streams where low DO values occurred. This acknowledges that some streams with significant wetland influences or blackwater characteristics can naturally exhibit low DO values (i.e. less than 5 mg/l) and still exhibit a ‘healthy' SCI. Despite these benefits of the FDEPs protocol, most of the metrics (SCI, periphyton, etc.) exhibit significant variation from year to year and season to season. The identification of healthy streams based on FDEP staff experience seems reliable, however refinement of adequate metrics to objectify this approach is still needed. More long-term data on SCI and other metrics is ultimately needed to reduce this variability. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.101

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Statement: EPA solicits comment on this issue and more generally on whether the benchmark sites identified by FDEP in its July 2009 proposal are an appropriate set of least- disturbed sites on which to base the criteria calculations. Comment: The FDEP benchmark streams for IPVs seem reasonable in several ways. The FDEPs inclusion of sites near silviculture regions is justified by their supporting data. The FDEP also included many benchmark streams where low DO values occurred. This acknowledges that some streams with significant wetland influences or blackwater characteristics can naturally exhibit low DO values (i.e. less than 5 mg/l) and still exhibit a ‘healthy' SCI. Despite these benefits of the FDEPs protocol, most of the metrics (SCI, periphyton, etc.) exhibit significant variation from year to year and season to season. The identification of healthy streams based on FDEP staff experience seems reliable, however refinement of adequate metrics to objectify this approach is still needed. More long-term data on SCI and other metrics is ultimately needed to reduce this variability. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.010

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3560Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

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 The following case studies demonstrate the reality of these negative consequences, and these examples demonstrate that EPA needs to abandon its present derivation methodology. Case Study 1: FDEP Reference Streams Prior to abandoning its own nutrient criteria rulemaking,[9] the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) selected "reference streams" (a.k.a. benchmark sites) in Florida's Bone Valley, North Central, Panhandle, and Peninsular regions. These streams are pristine. An EPA peer-review team lauded the scientific rigor of FDEP's approach to selecting these minimally disturbed streams as reference sites, and EPA representatives even visited several of these streams.[10] Notably, one EPA reviewer stated, "The rigorousness of the benchmark screening process leads me to believe that all nutrient concentrations observed at the benchmark sites are fully protective of the use."[11] Despite EPA's prior endorsement of FDEP's selection of reference streams, over one-third of these same streams fail to meet one or more of the applicable EPA regional criteria (i.e. instream protective values). The following charts demonstrate that numerous streams in the North Central, Panhandle, and Peninsular regions that are considered healthy by FDEP's state water quality experts fail to meet EPA's proposed in-stream protective values.[12] Original comment letter contains additional information in a table that compares FDEP references sites to EPA criteria on page 5 of the pdf. See original comment letter. So, in its haste to meet the deadlines of a consent decree, EPA has proposed nutrient standards that deem over a third of Florida's most pristine streams as impaired. These noncompliant, yet pristine, streams include flowing waters in state parks and conservation lands, such as the Econfina River in the Econfina River State Park and Black Water Creek in the Seminole State Forest.[13] This outcome evidences the arbitrary and capricious nature of EPA's crude regional criteria, and it demonstrates that nutrient criteria must be set at the nutrient levels at which water bodies will exhibit imbalances of naturally occurring populations of flora and fauna, based on cause and effect determinations. [9] According to FDEP Secretary Michael Sole, FDEP abandoned its rulemaking upon learning of the Consent Decree between EPA and EarthJustice. FDEP Secretary Michael Sole, Florida Governor and Cabinet December 8, 2009 Board Meeting, Official Transcript at http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/cabinet/mart.html . Unlike EPA, FDEP at least recognizes that there is no link between the criteria and impairment in the reference stream approach. See FDEP, Main Concerns with the Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters Published January 26, 2010, 1 (Feb. 17, 2010). [10] FDEP, Comments Regarding Stream Criteria, Review Draft, 12-13 (March 12, 2010). [11] Id. at 13 (emphasis added). [12] FDEP, Comments Regarding Stream Criteria, Review Draft, 44 (March 12, 2010). [13] 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 2-3561Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/eval_epa_proposed_criteria_020210.pdf . The streams cited in the text fail instream protective values for one or more parameters.


# Comment ID 1805-3.001.118

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Statement: EPA solicits comment on this issue and more generally on whether the benchmark sites identified by FDEP in its July 2009 proposal are an appropriate set of least-disturbed sites on which to base the criteria calculations. Comment: The FDEP benchmark streams for IPVs seem reasonable in several ways. The FDEPs inclusion of sites near silviculture regions is justified by their supporting data. The FDEP also included many benchmark streams where low DO values occurred. This acknowledges that some streams with significant wetland influences or blackwater characteristics can naturally exhibit low DO values (i.e. less than 5 mg/l) and still exhibit a ‘healthy’ SCI. Despite these benefits of the FDEPs protocol, most of the metrics (SCI, periphyton, etc.) exhibit significant variation from year to year and season to season. The identification of healthy streams based on FDEP staff experience seems reliable, however refinement of adequate metrics to objectify this approach is still needed. More long-term data on SCI and other metrics is ultimately needed to reduce this variability. 

# Comment ID 1920-1.001.018

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 45. A pine plantation is not the land use equivalent of a natural forest. As described in a recent study of non-point source pollution related to forest management activities in southern states, southern forests rely on intensive management practices including site preparation, fertilization, thinning, and harvesting (clear-cutting), all of which have the potential to affect water quality. (Exhibit G: NPS Pollution Related to Forest Management Activities in Southern States). Original comment letter contains additional information in Exhibit G, NPS Pollution Related to Forest Management Activities in Southern States. See original comment letter. These practices, combined with abundant water resources (rain) increases the potential for water quality impacts. While the study found that the impact of non-point source pollution in the region was small compared to agriculture, the effect of forestry operations was highly variable. And while BMPs clearly have the potential to protect water quality, accurate assessment of the overall effectiveness of BMPs is not possible.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3562Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

46. It should also be noted that the study used the drinking water standard for nitrate (10 mg/L) in determining that nitrate elevations post-clearcutting and fertilization were not significant. However, my work on the Wakulla Springs case proves that the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L is an unreasonably high measure to use when determining the potential harm of fertilized, non-point source pollution on a spring fed riverine system.


# Comment ID 1920-1.001.020

Author Name: Wise W. Organization: University of Florida on behalf of Earthjustice 48. In my opinion, pine plantations are a relatively benign land use compared to other agricultural activities such as CAFOs and row-cropping. Therefore I agree with FDEP that the mere existence of silvicultural activities in the watershed of a stream does not necessarily disqualify the stream from use as a reference reach. However, streams in silvicultural dominated watersheds in Florida are not "pristine" streams such that the use of a 90th percentile is justifiable for setting a numeric nutrient criteria using a reference stream methodology. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0678.001.006, 1414-1.001.010, 1477-1.001.013, 1532-1.001.010, 1671-3.001.027, 1671-03.001.073, 1434­ 01.001.023, 1464-02.001.025, 1782-1.001.110, 1761-3.001.132, 1777-2.001.101, 0964.001.005, 1288-1.001.012, 1292-1.001.009, 1292-1.001.084, 1304-1.001.046, 1340.001.002, 1340.001.005, 1350-01.001.019, 1481-1.001.024, 1671-3.001.031, 1671­ 3.001.037, 1805-3.001.118, 1920-1.001.018, 1920-1.001.020 Response: EPA agrees that nitrogen/phosphorus pollution of aquatic systems from human activities is widespread, and that human population patterns and associated supporting activities make truly pristine streams relatively rare. However, EPA disagrees that the criteria setting process requires waters be returned to pristine or pre-human settlement conditions and also disagrees that the intent of the EPA draft nutrient criteria is to do that. First, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The CWA and implementing regulations require that water quality standards include criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge and that protect the designated use, not criteria that reflect natural background conditions. Florida's Class III use includes aquatic life that have arguably adapted to a level of existing human disturbance. EPA determined that numeric nutrient criteria were necessary to protect the State's Class III lakes and flowing waters, and has developed these criteria accordingly. In establishing the draft and final nutrient criteria, it was not necessary to identify, locate, or characterize pristine streams, or the water quality conditions that would exist in such streams. EPA is establishing numeric nutrient criteria that protect healthy biological communities in Florida’s streams and should assure the maintenance and protection of downstream uses. The protection of truly minimally impacted waters can be addressed by anti-degradation policies and procedures, required by the CWA but not specifically addressed in this rule. EPA agrees with comments in that our evaluation of FDEP's original benchmark approach did not provide us with sufficient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3563Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams confidence upon which to base nutrient criteria protective of aquatic life instream and downstream of the point of application of such criteria. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the benchmark approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula that adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed land cover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. EPA recognizes the significant amount of work done by FDEP in selecting and vetting sites for its original regional benchmark distributions, considered the benchmark approach and for the final rule is using a version of it, but EPA's evaluation of the original FDEP benchmark approach did not provide EPA with sufficient confidence that all sites in the State's original benchmark distribution were unaffected by nitrogen/phosphorus pollution resulting from human activities and, therefore, developed a similar process but with more stringent screens. EPA posted in a Supplemental Notice of Data Availability an approach that uses this benchmark type approach similar to that developed by FDEP, but with theadditional screens applied to candidate reference waters. Because EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified there. The criteria developed for the region defined by EPA as the West Central for the final rule (previously Bone Valley) were based on relatively higher prevailing ambient levels of nutrients, clearly influenced by the natural geology of the area, but also obviously affected to some degree by human disturbance. Having no reliable way in this region to distinguish contribution from an unacceptable level of disturbance, EPA developed criteria for this region consistent with a general reference approach used for the rest of the State, albeit using the SCI approach for selecting sites for the reasons detailed above. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. In its determination that numeric nutrient criteria were necessary in Florida, EPA recognized that effective assessment with narrative criteria alone for nutrients was often difficult and inadequate. In developing protective numeric nutrient criteria, it is clearly EPA's expectation that these criteria will provide for more precise and accurate assessment of nutrient impairment. And, since the use of numeric nutrient criteria is expected to provide more effective assessment, it is therefore reasonable to assume that waters with significant nutrient impact that may have been previously overlooked will now be listed. In the process, a more reliable picture of nutrient over-enrichment in Florida should emerge, and provide a sound basis for control and remediation through various CWA mechanisms and State water quality management programs. The frequency and duration components of the final criteria are geometric means not to be exceeded more than once in three years and were chosen to allow for the natural variability of nutrients in these streams. There is an assumption that streams are resilient to disturbance and that one year’s exceedance is allowable, but allowing longer duration exceedances without action may not be supported scientifically as discussed in the proposed and final rule and proposed and final rule TSD. EPA chose to use an annual average not to be exceeded more than once in 3 years for the final rule based on this and similar comments. The frequency and duration components of these criteria were chosen to allow for the natural variability of nutrients in these streams. This duration was considered appropriate because of the generally chronic manifestation of nutrient effects on flowing systems and the 1/3 year frequency element because of the relative resilience of flowing water systems and evidence of recovery times expected of disturbed streams as outlined in the final rule TSD. EPA considers the magnitude, frequency, and duration of these criteria to fully protect the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3564Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams designated use with a high probability, and that appropriate implementation of these criteria into assessment methodology should reliably identify streams impaired for nutrients and in need of remediation under the CWA. CWA section 319 programs encourage and support the development of Forestry Best Management Practices (BMP) to control nonpoint sources of pollution, and EPA is aware of Florida's achievements in this area. However, since these BMPs were likely developed with consideration of the State's narrative nutrient criteria, they might not be expected to achieve the necessary reductions of nutrients associated with these anthropogenic activities to meet numeric nutrient criteria which have been scientifically developed to protect the designated use of affected waterbodies. The CWA anticipates that new or revised water quality standards will require review, reconsideration and potential revision of previously existing components of water quality management. EPA utilized a reference condition approach in development of the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for Class III flowing waters of Florida based upon a distribution of reference condition sites which FDEP considers to exhibit healthy biological communities. The SCI approach which EPA has applied in the final rule to the West Central NWR did not directly exclude sites based upon a level of anthropogenic influence, but since the CWA requires that criteria be developed to protect the designated use and assure the maintenance and protection of downstream uses, the SCI approach does directly exclude sites impaired due to nutrients or dissolved oxygen. This commenter was concerned about the use of low dissolved oxygen as a basis to reject candidate reference sites because low oxygen may be a natural occurrence. EPA considered this and other comments. EPA retained the removal of sites listed by FDEP as impaired for dissolved oxygen for both the modified benchmark and SCI reference populations as detailed in the final rule and TSD. EPA rejected sites because of low dissolved oxygen where those sites had been included by FDEP on Florida’s list of impaired waters, pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA. FDEP is not required to include waterbodies on the section 303(d) list where it demonstrates that concentrations of dissolved oxygen were measured below the numeric criteria due solely to natural conditions. Without such a demonstration, EPA must rely on FDEP’s identification of impairment when considering whether to select candidate reference sites. Concerns related to FDEP’s section 303(d) list should be addressed through the 303(d) listing process, which is independent of the nutrient criteria development process. Similarly, any comments about the appropriateness of Florida’s dissolved oxygen criteria should be addressed in FDEP’s criterion development process and not the nutrient criteria process. Consideration of the relative nutrient contribution of adjacent and upstream land uses was an integral component of FDEP's original benchmark approach. In EPA's evaluation of that approach, review of the materials referenced in this comment did not necessarily provide EPA sufficient confidence that sites with forestry management land use immediately adjacent to or upstream of the waterbody could be used as reference sites with reliable assurance that nitrogen/phosphorus pollution potentially introduced by periodic forest management activity would not overly influence nutrient levels at that point and downstream. For this reason, in the final rule, EPA has modified the original benchmark approach to also include watershed land use and additional screens based on impairment listings and biological condition. See the final rule and final rule TSD for more detail. 

# III.C.5 - REQUEST FOR COMMENT AND DATA ON ALTERNATIVE APPROACH Comment ID 0818.001.003

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3565Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Sherreffs D. Organization: Florida Clean Water Action In Florida we all live downstream. It can make that really difficult to set targets for water bodies, and we understand that. For example, Miami-Dade County and areas within Monroe and Hillsboro County have significant different geochemical constructions which alter phosphorous holding rates. Instead of allowing this challenge to derail implementation of the Clean Water Act, the EPA should consider exempting nonimpaired water bodies from current proposed criteria and benchmark their existing phosphorous nitrogen and chlorophyll loads as the numeric standards for these water bodies. 

# Comment ID 1296-1.001.004

Author Name: Drew H. Organization: Wood Cellulose Manufacturing To establish the nutrient TMDL for the Fenholloway River, EPA Region 4 established a protective ecological endpoint target for chlorophyll-a in the estuary. This target was based on an unimpaired reference system - the Econfina River system. The primary goal was to protect the extensive submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds of the Apalachee Bay and meet the USEPA National Coastal Condition Report II recommendations for Gulf Coast estuaries (USEPA, 2004). From the extensive field data on the Fenholloway and Econfina systems and with the chlorophyll-a target, HydroQual, Inc. used a calibrated time-variable hydrodynamic/water quality model to calculate the maximum loads which meet the ecological target. In all, the TMDL development process involved a cost to Buckeye alone of over $3 million. For the record, a copy of the final EPA approved TMDL is attached (Exhibit 1). Buckeye's involvement in the development of this EPA Region 4 TMDL provides a sound technical basis for the assessment of EPA's proposed numeric IPVs for flowing waters and DPVs for estuaries. For the Apalachee Bay Watershed and the Econfma/Steinhatchee Coastal Drainage Area, the DPVs proposed by EPA are significantly lower than the EPA Region 4 nutrient TMDL for the Fenholloway River (WBIDs 3473A and 3473B). The IPVs proposed by EPA for the Panhandle area are also significantly lower than the current condition of the Econfina River which was used by EPA Region 4 as the reference stream for developing the Fenholloway TMDL. Since most of the flowing waters of the Apalachee Bay Watershed, from the Steinhatchee to the Ochlocknee River, are characteristically similar and the only estuary listed as impaired for nutrient enrichment is the Fenholloway, the appropriateness of the proposed IPVs and DPVs applicable to the Apalachee Bay Watershed must be questioned. 

# Comment ID 1319.001.007

Author Name: Bouyounes M. Organization: Bouyounes Turpentine and Kettle Company We at Bouyounes Turpentine and Kettle are specifically concerned about nutrient levels in blackwater streams like the St. Marys River and encourage you to use some sort of biological monitoring such as micro invertebrates to determine the impact that criteria are having on the biotic components of the water. As part of an adaptive management process,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3566Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams results from these biotic tests could be used to decide whether numeric nutrient criteria are helping or hurting the water body. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.111

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Dodds and Welch (2000) discuss the difficulties in establishing nutrient criteria in streams and suggest that among, other things, co-limitation of nitrogen and phosphorus is prevalent in US streams. Co-limitation, the interaction of TN and TP, was not considered in the development of numeric nutrient criteria nor was there an attempt to establish the limiting nutrient. Dodds and Welch suggest estimates of system metabolism are needed. They suggest statistical distribution approaches should be considered and predictive models be developed, such as linking nutrient concentrations to benthic algal biomass in streams. These authors also suggest human health criteria for nutrient in streams as potential criteria in the absence of dose response relationships in the instream biota. Rosemond et. al. (2001) predicted algal biomass as a function of physical and chemical parameters in North Georgia streams and found that soluble reactive phosphorus, substrate particle size and dissolved oxygen concentrations predicted the majority of the variation in their data. However, soluble reactive phosphorus was correlated with fine particles and sedimentation such that increased algal biomass due to increased phosphorus was offset by increased small particles which attenuated light available to the algae. The complexities of developing effective numeric nutrient criteria relies not only on the estimation of the number itself but in having a flexible implementation strategy that allows for the recognition of the inherent differences among streams in their response to nutrient inputs. 

# Comment ID 1370-1.001.043

Author Name: Hanson R. Organization: Orange County Utilities 9. Develop a tiered system of numeric criteria for streams that takes into account major confounding factors affecting the biological health of a water body and the perceived risk to society and the environment of degradation of the water quality in the waterbody. 

# Comment ID 1414-1.001.006

Author Name: Poltak R. Organization: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 3) Reduction ofnutrients is not the only solution for addressing impairments. The Proposed Rule makes the assumption that reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus is the best method for addressing

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3567Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams increased biomass in streams. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to use alternative approaches such as restoring natural retention time through dam removal or limiting light by restoring riparian vegetation. 

# Comment ID 1433-1.001.008

Author Name: McIndoe J. Organization: Alabama Department of Environmental Management As one alternative to EPA's proposed approach for establishing nutrient criteria for rivers and streams, ADEM encourages the inclusion of a response parameter that would dictate when management actions are necessary to reduce TP or TN concentrations. The response parameter could take the form of a nutrient enrichment index that accounts for multiple factors affecting the expression of nutrient impacts in flowing waters. In addition, EPA should select the 90th percentile concentrations for TP and TN measured in biologically healthy streams in those regions where there is sufficient data. As a second alternative to EPA's proposed approach, ADEM suggests that in the absence of a suitable response parameter, EPA should select the 90th percentile concentrations for TP and TN from the distribution of concentrations measured at biologically healthy stream sites and allow for a frequency of criterion exceedance which more closely matches the natural variability of nutrient concentrations in healthy streams. A risk-based approach could be used to determine the appropriate exceedance rate. 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.030

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. The TP, TN, and chlorophyll a criteria should be applied independently - As for lakes (see above), these criteria should each "stand alone" to protect Florida's streams: If one of the three parameters is exceeded, then the system should be characterized as in violation of the nutrient water quality standards. 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.031

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. In future efforts to strengthen the stream nutrient criteria, inorganic nitrogen criteria should be developed - Inorganic nitrogen criteria are needed in streams as well as total nitrogen criteria. The above comments under Section 1 apply here. In addition, as mentioned, U.S. EPA is in the process of developing protective downstream estuarine criteria. Florida is surrounded by estuarine and coastal waters that are highly sensitive to nitrogen pollution, especially inorganic N (e.g. Lapointe et al. 1990, Lapointe and Clark 1992, Lapointe and Matzie 1996, Tomasko et al. 1996, National

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3568Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Research Council 2000, Tomasko et al. 2001, 2005). 

# Comment ID 1464-2.001.032

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. Additional criteria should also be considered for high-quality waters and potable water sources to strengthen the stream nutrient criteria - Additional criteria may be needed for high-quality riverine waters, and for riverine potable water sources that may be more prone to increased algal and/or cyanobacteria blooms, including potentially toxic species that can cause disease in humans and beneficial aquatic life (see Section 1 of these comments). 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.047

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute TFI recommends site-specific criteria for streams because it is not possible to develop scientifically defensible generic criteria for these waterbodies. TFI recognizes that the development of site-specific nutrient standards is labor intensive and time consuming. However, as EPA's Science Advisory Board has pointed out, "[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." SAB Report, at 38. Taking the time to develop scientifically defensible criteria does not mean that water quality improvement in Florida will not continue. As the State has ably demonstrated, total maximum daily loads provide a very effective tool for reducing nutrients. In fact, Florida has developed 135 nutrient TMDLs with an additional 39 pending adoption. 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.023

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection DEP also recommends that EPA develop nitrogen criteria that recognize natural organic nitrogen levels from wetlands, with criteria based on stream color and/or wetland drainage area (see comments on SPARROW and Downstream Protection Values). Much of the variability in organic nitrogen can be attributed to natural conditions, which should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation. Alternatively, EPA should consider developing the criteria for Total Soluble Inorganic Nitrogen, rather than TN, as the criterion for in-stream protection related to nitrogen. There is a demonstrated cause and effect relationship between nitrate and algal growth in clear (<40 PCU) Florida streams, whereas no significant adverse effects have been demonstrated for TN. Note also that no relationship between nitrate and biological response was found in colored (>40 PCU) streams.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3569Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Another approach would be to consider selecting a higher percentile of total nitrogen concentrations to account for the influence of wetlands based upon the organic nitrogen fraction. It would be inappropriate to select a percentile of the distribution that would have the unintended consequence of targeting wetland dominated watersheds for organic nitrogen reduction activities (e.g., clear cutting of swamp forests to reduce leaf litter fall). 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.133

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(5) Request for Comment and Data on Alternative Approach Statement: EPA is soliciting comment on the alternative to deriving numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's streams as described in Section III.C(4). Comment: The proposed alternatives are to refine the FDEP benchmark streams to include more hydrodynamic characteristics as well as more long-term SCI values. An example refinement that was instituted in 2004 is based on the analysis in the below figure where the SCI score varies based on the sampling size ( EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 ). It is noted that SCI sampling has changed after 2004 to reflect this sampling variation; however FDEP also proposed several other metrics (Biological condition gradient, habitat disturbance gradient, etc.) to reduce variability in SCI. The EPA's proposal does not include these additional metrics. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6: The larger the sample, the “healthier” the SCI. See original comment letter. In addition to SCI sampling, the proposed EPA rule also does not provide specific quantities (minimum number of samples, etc.) when referring to annual means and other statistics. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 7: Example table from FDEP benchmark stream summaries. FDEP also looked at periphyton community structure. FDEP provided significantly more metrics than just SCI to establish their reference streams. In choosing only SCI, the proposed EPA rule is more vulnerable to variation. See original comment letter. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 also found that the largest percentage of SCI variance was associated with differences in site characteristics from 1 visit to the next. The fact that year to year variation as well as seasonal variation at each site generally exhibited the most variation seems to imply that that not enough long-term data has been included.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3570Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Additional significant factors may also need to be included. For example: "SCI appeared to be correlated with watershed size because the most disturbed sites happened to be very small" ( EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 ). Also including information on pesticides, dredging, metals, and other potential natural and anthropogenic influences is warranted if available. While time lag (Hysteresis) was mentioned in the EPA federal register document, no statistical analysis looked at this effect in any great detail. For example, a recent WBID analysis by ATM found a relatively strong lagged correlation between nutrient load and DO deficit (ATM, 2010). Lagging seemed successful using time delays between 2 months and 1-year. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.102

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(5) Request for Comment and Data on Alternative Approach Statement: EPA is soliciting comment on the alternative to deriving numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's streams as described in Section III.C(4). Comment: The proposed alternatives are to refine the FDEP benchmark streams to include more hydrodynamic characteristics as well as more long-term SCI values. An example refinement that was instituted in 2004 is based on the analysis in the below figure where the SCI score varies based on the sampling size ( EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 ). It is noted that SCI sampling has changed after 2004 to reflect this sampling variation; however FDEP also proposed several other metrics (Biological condition gradient, habitat disturbance gradient, etc.) to reduce variability in SCI. The EPA's proposal does not include these additional metrics. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6: The larger the sample, the “healthier” the SCI. See original comment letter. In addition to SCI sampling, the proposed EPA rule also does not provide specific quantities (minimum number of samples, etc.) when referring to annual means and other statistics. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 7: Example table from FDEP benchmark stream summaries. FDEP also looked at periphyton community structure. FDEP provided significantly more metrics than just SCI to establish their reference streams. In choosing only SCI, the proposed EPA rule is more vulnerable to variation. See original comment letter. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 also found that the largest percentage of SCI variance was associated with differences in site characteristics from 1 visit to the next. The fact that year to year variation as well as seasonal variation at each site generally exhibited the most variation seems to imply that that not enough long-term data has been included.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3571Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Additional significant factors may also need to be included. For example: "SCI appeared to be correlated with watershed size because the most disturbed sites happened to be very small" ( EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 ). Also including information on pesticides, dredging, metals, and other potential natural and anthropogenic influences is warranted if available. While time lag (Hysteresis) was mentioned in the EPA federal register document, no statistical analysis looked at this effect in any great detail. For example, a recent WBID analysis by ATM found a relatively strong lagged correlation between nutrient load and DO deficit (ATM, 2010). Lagging seemed successful using time delays between 2 months and 1-year. 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.010

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District Specific Comments - Rivers and Streams
1. In order to establish general numeric nutrient criteria that are protective of designated uses, the District recommends that stream numeric criteria should be site-specific in order to avoid promulgating inappropriately permissive or restrictive criteria. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.119

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(5) Request for Comment and Data on Alternative Approach Statement: EPA is soliciting comment on the alternative to deriving numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s streams as described in Section III.C(4). Comment: The proposed alternatives are to refine the FDEP benchmark streams to include more hydrodynamic characteristics as well as more long-term SCI values. An example refinement that was instituted in 2004 is based on the analysis in the below figure where the SCI score varies based on the sampling size ( EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 ). It is noted that SCI sampling has changed after 2004 to reflect this sampling variation; however FDEP also proposed several other metrics (Biological condition gradient, habitat disturbance gradient, etc.) to reduce variability in SCI. The EPA’s proposal does not include these additional metrics.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3572Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6: The larger the sample, the “healthier” the SCI. See original comment letter. In addition to SCI sampling, the proposed EPA rule also does not provide specific quantities (minimum number of samples, etc.) when referring to annual means and other statistics. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 7: Example table from FDEP benchmark stream summaries. See original comment letter. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 also found that the largest percentage of SCI variance was associated with differences in site characteristics from 1 visit to the next. The fact that year to year variation as well as seasonal variation at each site generally exhibited the most variation seems to imply that that not enough long-term data has been included. Additional significant factors may also need to be included. For example: "SCI appeared to be correlated with watershed size because the most disturbed sites happened to be very small" ( EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.17 ). Also including information on pesticides, dredging, metals, and other potential natural and anthropogenic influences is warranted if available. While time lag (Hysteresis) was mentioned in the EPA federal register document, no statistical analysis looked at this effect in any great detail. For example, a recent WBID analysis by ATM found a relatively strong lagged correlation between nutrient load and DO deficit (ATM, 2010). Lagging seemed successful using time delays between 2 months and 1-year. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.079

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Suggested Alternative Approach for Streams SER proposes that the diverse streams be subdivided, at a minimum, into appropriate state regions and then progressively by geology, ecology and designated use. Once these classifications are determined, samples from those regions should be classified by conductivity, habitat score and dissolved oxygen and other variables. This may be accomplished using multivariate statistical methods. The technology is available to define expected nutrient regimes for each classification type using mechanistic models such as AQUATOX, which can be simulate the stream reach as to hydrology, habitat and primary producer response to a level protective of each stream type. Variations on this approach have been performed on streams in Minnesota (Carleton et al., 2009) and on the Cahaba River in Alabama (Blancher et aI., 2002). Based on the model, streams could then be divided into nutrient regimes that are likely to result in biological impacts, and these could be placed on a "suspect" list. Those stream reaches so identified would then be subject to biological verification using the SCI or an algal study such as FDEP's periphyton procedure. However, this may not be protective enough because macroinvertebrates may not

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3573Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams respond to nutrient loadinqs until the organic load is high enough to impair macroinvertebrate communities; in fast flowing streams this may only occur under extreme circumstances. In fact this has been analytically verified in comments made by others for this rulemaking (Hydroqual, 2010; NCASI, 2010). Independently, we have observed healthy macroinvertebrate communities in streams with high nutrient loads, (e.g. the Cahaba River) that even though there is a very large biomass of periphytic algae at particular reaches (TAl Environmental Sciences, 2001, 2002; Howell and Davenport, 2000, 2001, 2002; Davenport et al., 2005). An additional and very practical verification of community imbalance could be noted in the continuous dissolved oxygen record (Wool et aI., 2003; Cox et aI., 2007). This also was suggested by Reckhow et al. (2002) because eutrophication impact is often expressed by hypoxic conditions. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a widely used indicator of river condition and water quality. DO in a water body is affected by many physical factors (surface reaeration, winds, tides, vertical mixing, etc.) and biogeochemical (plant photosynthesis, respiration, etc.) processes. Under normal conditions, DO can be modeled using parameters such as water temperature and conductivity, which are regularly measured concurrently with DO. However, when environmental conditions decline, such as when nutrient concentrations increase in the river, algae are able to grow very rapidly resulting in large-scale fluctuations in DO levels that lead to stress on aquatic life and a decline in ecological conditions in the aquatic system. The Cahaba River (Figure 6) and its surrounding watershed provide recreation and Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 6. Cahaba River in central Alabama, shown along with sampling sites. See original comment letter. drinking water to the surrounding population around Birmingham, Alabama. Habitat changes due to sediment loading and algal blooms have negatively impacted the ecosystem in portions of the river, threatening the water quality and life sustainability of the river. In an effort to detect large scale algae blooms by monitoring diurnal DO variations, TAl Scientists (TAl Environmental Sciences, 2001, 2002) conducted a study where values of DO, temp, pH, specific conductivity, and turbidity were continuously sampled at several sites along the Cahaba River. A dynamic Partial Least Squares (dPLS) model was developed that used the causative parameters of temp, pH, specific conductivity, and turbidity as the input to the model, which then predicted the values of DO. Under normal conditions, variations in DO were explained by the variations in the causative parameters (Figure 7). However, when large scale algae blooms occurred, DO variations could not be explained by the causative parameters, and the resulting high values of the model Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and prediction error indicated abnormally high variations in DO caused by excessive algal bloom (Figure 8). Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 8. Low values of RMSE and Prediction Errors indicate normal environmental conditions. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 9. High values of RMSE and Prediction Errors at Site 1 on the Cahaba River indicate declining environmental conditions caused by excessive algae bloom. See original comment letter. As stated previously, nutrients do not typically cause stress to ecosystems but initiate a chain of production events, which in turn stimulate respiration and decomposition. This in turn may cause stress in ecosystems, when hydrologic conditions permit excess production materials to remain, and reduce oxygen to stressful levels. Thus, the key to regulating nutrients is to define when nutrients stimulate excess production beyond the capacity of the system to regulate. The methods described above, first using mechanistic or probabilistic models to identify streams where

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3574Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams nutrients may be at levels that could cause problems, followed by verification of impacts by observing biology and dissolved oxygen, would provide a more robust and scientifically valid way to manage nutrients in Florida's streams. 

# Response Comment IDs: 1352-1.001.111, 1370-1.001.043, 1433-1.001.008, 1761-3.001.133, 1777-2.001.102, 1805-3.001.119 EPA received many comments on this section. These comments were organized into general themes and response prepared. Several comments disagreed with whether reference sites were appropriately selected. These comments included the general perspective that the Stream Condition Index (SCI) reference site selection method was arbitrary and simplistic. EPA has considered this and other comments. EPA notes that the reference set of streams used to derive the final criteria in the rule are different than the set of streams used to derive the proposed criteria, except in the West Central Nutrient Watershed Region (NWR). Other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference set of streams, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream set because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. As to the SCI reference site selection method, simplicity in and of itself is not generally an argument against a reference site selection method. The development of the SCI, used as the principal screening tool for the “biologically healthy” reference population, was not a simple process. The SCI incorporates a multitude of information in it, including rules for selecting least disturbed reference sites that were used to develop, score, and identify nutrient thresholds. Moreover, EPA disagrees that the method of selecting reference sites based on an SCI screen was arbitrary. EPA detailed in the TSD the lengthy, involved, scientifically defensible, and transparent process used to generate the multimetric index; a process that is based on well established EPA guidance and scientific principles. The bioassessment and bioindicator literature underlying the SCI is both broad and comprehensive. Similarly, the selection of an SCI threshold of 40 was not arbitrary, but rather based on two rigorous statistical analyses detailed in the TSD. EPA considered a variety of potential SCI endpoints, as detailed in the TSD, and concluded that a value of 40 was most defensible. EPA wanted to develop a reference selection process that was both defensible and clear. The process EPA proposed depended on easily replicable bioassessment results that are clear to identify and easy to use in selecting sites. The SCI also clearly responds to stressors, including nutrient stressors, as detailed in the TSD and citations therein. Other comments opposed the use of the SCI alone for site selection, arguing that natural conditions can influence the SCI tool performance including physical-chemical parameters such as velocity, conductivity, pH, temp, and DO which can act as natural stressors. Natural variability does influence SCI scores, as reflected in the variability around minimally impacted reference sites SCI scores. EPA considered the influence of this natural variability explicitly in the selection of the SCI threshold and this consideration is described in great detail in the TSD appendices B-13 and B-14. There is also a great deal of information about human disturbance incorporated into the SCI score. For example, the development of the SCI included responsiveness to human disturbance gradients, including the Land Disturbance Index (LDI), in the selection, scoring, and threshold selection processes. So, the SCI scoresinherently include considerations of human disturbance, and the selection of the threshold incorporates considerations of leastdisturbed conditions. Lastly, the SCI was not used alone for reference site selection. CWA section 303(d) listing information was also used in screening sites for inclusion as reference sites. Other comments disagreed with the use of low dissolved oxygen as a basis to reject candidate reference sites because low oxygen may be a natural occurrence. EPA considered this and other comments. EPA retained the removal of sites listed by FDEP as

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3575Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams impaired for dissolved oxygen for both the modified benchmark and SCI reference populations as detailed in the final rule and TSD. EPA rejected sites because of low dissolved oxygen where those sites had been included by FDEP on Florida’s list of impaired waters, pursuant to section 303(d) of the CWA. FDEP is not required to include waterbodies on the section 303(d) list where it demonstrates that concentrations of dissolved oxygen were measured below the numeric criteria due solely to natural conditions. Without such a demonstration, EPA must rely on FDEP’s identification of impairment when considering whether to select candidate reference sites. Concerns related to FDEP’s section 303(d) list should be addressed through the 303(d) listing process, which is independent of the nutrient criteria development process. Similarly, any comments about the appropriateness of Florida’s dissolved oxygen criteria should be addressed in FDEP’s criterion development process and not the nutrient criteria process. Some comments objected to the rejection of WBIDs listed as impaired for mercury or coliforms. EPA did not exclude WBIDs that were listed as impaired for any constituent other than dissolved oxygen and nutrients. This is detailed in the draft and final rule and TSD. Lastly, with regards to reference site selection, some comments sought clarification on the SCI reference approach. EPA provided a lengthy and clear description of the straightforward process used for selecting the SCI Population reference sites, which included a detailed description of the development of the SCI itself, in section 2 of the proposed rule TSD. 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 notes that they did not have sufficient data to explore lag time between nutrient load and DO on a sufficient scale to develop regional criteria. Therefore, the lag time or hysteresis stressor-response effect was not explored. A number of comments disagreed with the sufficiency of data used by EPA. EPA considered these and other comments. The first assertion was that EPA used limited data. EPA considered all available data of defensible quality. For both the proposed and final rule for streams, this included screening and evaluating water chemistry data from more than 11,000 samples from over 6,000 sites statewide, and evaluating biological data of more than 2,000 samples from over 1,100 streams. A review of these data is included in the TSD and data files were also made available to the public. A second assertion was that data were collected during a fewclimatically abnormal years. It is unclear what is meant by climatically abnormal as Florida is typified by highly variable inter11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3576Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams annual climatic conditions (see figure below with annual precipitation data). Biological data were collected from 2004 to 2008, a period which, according to precipitation data from the Florida Climate Center, included years with annual average precipitationabove the 75th percentile of long-term average annual precipitation, years with annual averages below the 25th percentile of longterm average annual precipitation, and years with annual averages equal to the long-term average annual precipitation. Chemistry data were collected during an even longer period encompassing a similarly balanced number of variable climatic conditions. EPA concludes from this that the data used to derive numeric nutrient criteria incorporate the full range of hydrologic conditions representative of the variability typically observed in Florida including high, low and average conditions and that the range of conditions represented by the data actually reinforces the defensibility of the resultant criteria. Lastly, there were comments that weighting or averaging was needed when using data from multiple STORET stations within the same WBID. In response to this and similar comments, EPA considered the autocorrelation issues involved in using site averages for sites located closely in space and explored the use of WBID averages. For the final rule, EPA has decided to use WBID averages instead of site averages, which reduces the effect of spatial autocorrelation. The reanalysis and justification are detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. The supplemental notice included analyses of WBID based spatial units. EPA received several comments that disagreed with the criteria determination process using the reference condition approach. EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, other than the West Central NWR, EPA used a modification of FDEP’s benchmark reference approach, as described more fully in the final preamble and final TSD. For the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference stream approach because there were insufficient benchmark sites within the West Central to calculate a percentile with confidence. The first comment within this general topic was that use of the upper bound of the distribution for “healthy” streams compromises the criteria. EPA considered several options for percentiles and incorporated the concern reflected in this comment into its consideration of which percentiles to use in the final rule. For the final rule, other than the West Central Region, EPA is using the 90th percentile of the modified benchmark approach WBID averages within each region because of EPA’s confidence in the screening of that reference population. In the West Central, EPA is using the 75th percentile of SCI approach WBID averages because of reduced confidence in the quality of sites within that population and the reduced sample size. The details of this decision and analysis are included in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA concluded that a reference populationtypified by either healthy biological conditions or least-disturbed conditions provides EPA with the confidence that these are leastdisturbed sites and that the use of upper bound percentiles from this population to establish the criteria was acceptable. A second related comment was that no analysis had been provided to support the 75th percentile as an accurate statistic for defining the distribution of reference sites and that its selection was a policy and not technical decision. As stated above, in response to this and similar comments, EPA revisited the percentile selection process and decided on the percentiles indicated above. EPA defends the selection of an upper percentile of biologically healthy and least disturbed populations of values as technically defensible for protecting streams. Again, EPA provided a detailed argument of why that is so, related to the fact that the nutrient dynamics of such sites are, implicitly, consistent with that found in sites supporting designated uses. EPA also affirms that the 75th percentile is indeed a statistical characteristic of a population distribution. EPA agrees that the final decision to use a specific percentile does include the exercise of judgment, but that judgment is not arbitrary but rather is based on a consideration of risk to uses based on the degree to which the basis population represents conditions expected to support uses and a consideration of errors in making use attainment decisions based on the resultant values. This judgment is informed by technical information as well. Lastly, some comments asked why a 90th percentile was not used, as suggested by FDEP. Again, EPA has finalized streams criteria for most regions using the 90th percentile when there are sufficient data available to provide EPA with enough confidence that the reference site population is least-disturbed, and closely reflective of minimally impacted conditions. In the West Central Region, where fewer reference sites are available, EPA has continued to set the criteria at the 75th percentile because there is less confidence that these

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3577Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

sites reflect least-disturbed conditions. EPA elected to use a reference condition approach to develop protective numeric criteria. For the proposed criteria and for the final rule criteria in the West Central, from the distribution of sites with documented healthy biological communities (i.e., SCI >= 40), filtered to remove nutrient and nutrient related (e.g., DO) impairments, EPA chose the nutrient levels associated with the 75th percentile. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI based population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration if inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. Again, as notedabove for regions other than the West Central, for the final rule, EPA has relied on a more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites that allow the use of a higher percentile, because there is less uncertainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses. For those regions, EPA has selected the 90th percentile of its modified Benchmarks population of reference sites.

Comment IDs: 1474-1.001.047, 1671-3.001.023, 1801-1.001.010, 2233-1.001.079 Response: EPA received comments disagreeing with how the Agency decided to classify streams into Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWR). EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, EPA has decided to split the Panhandle Region into West and East Regions and to restrict the size of the West Central (previously Bone Valley) Region. There were several comments related to intraregional classification. The first comment was that the approach for regionalization was too broad, that criteria will not protect the diversity and unique characteristics of waters that vary within regions, and that site-specific studies and criteria would account for more variability. As outlined in the nutrient criteria guidance, EPA recognizes that classification aims to reduce as much natural variability within classes as possible. Such classification efforts must weigh the trade-off between specificity, which would be optimized if each site were considered separately, and resource requirements and data availability, which clearly limit how fine a classification is possible. EPA considered a variety of regionalization schemes and has decided on the regionalization described above and detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA believes the regionalization is protective of Florida streams since EPA considered the full range of variability in its selection of sites and captures that variability in its selection of the SCI thresholds based on inter-site variability among reference sites and in its selection of the upper bound percentiles of the reference population.

A second comment related to stream classification was that 4th order streams are different from 1st order streams in structure and function and in responses to nutrient loads. EPA agrees that size can affect stream processes and EPA considered stream size, but did not find a compelling basis for differentiating criteria based on stream size for the final rule since stronger differences were attributable to interregional classes as detailed in the proposed rule and final rule TSDs. EPA would not rule out regional refinement in the future based on stream size should compelling evidence support such a change. The federal site-specific alternative criteria procedure established in the rule may be used for such changes when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. A third comment is that stream classifications should have been based on concentrations and not N:P ratios. EPA agrees that N:P

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3578Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams ratios along should not be the sole basis for classification which is why EPA considered concentrations as well as N:P ratios in its classification and detailed this in the draft rule and final rule TSDs. There were also several comments related to interregional classification elements. Some comments argued that soil and geologic differences were related to P but not N and, therefore, were not appropriate bases for NWR for nitrogen. EPA considered many factors related to classification and considered several classification options. Clearly, there are differences among the regions with respect to geologically reactive P deposits, especially highlighted in differences between the North Central and West Central Regions and other regions. EPA revisited the regionalization associated with the geologically reactive Hawthorn Group in response to these and other comments and selected the regionalization described above for both TP and TN, which is described in detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent. EPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion at this time. However, EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a color-TN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA’s analysis of the stream TN data indicated that the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than non-Panhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. Other comments suggested that geology was an appropriate basis for regionalization, but that biological comparisons should also be used to identify regional differences. EPA’s regionalization began with a framework developed by FDEP that was based on biology. The FDEP effort considered bioregions from their bioassessment programs as one element in their classification framework. Not surprisingly, the final EPA NWR classification is similar to the bio-regionalization developed by FDEP for their SCI tool, with some obvious differences dictated by geological factors. Lastly, EPA received comments that nutrient availability is controlled by soil chemistry, geology, and hydrogeology and that classes should be based on these factors for areas with adequate supporting data. EPA agrees and considered all of these factors, data availability, and appropriate response characteristics in establishing the NWR classes. Soil chemistry reflects underlying geology, which was an element used by EPA in developing the NWRs. Similarly, EPA considered ecoregions which themselves rely heavily on geology, soil type, and hydrology. Importantly, however, EPA also considered trends in observed nutrient distributions to verify and guide classification. It is the behavior of nutrients that manifests the effects of the major classification drivers, so EPA relied on this to help guide final class selection.

Comment IDs: 0818.001.003, 1296-1.001.004, 1319.001.007, 1352-1.001.111, 1370-1.001.043, 1464-2.001.030, 1464-2.001.032

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3579Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Response: EPA also received comments related to implementation. The first theme within these comments was related to assessment errors and conflicts between biological conditions and impairment decisions which could result from EPA’s criteria. EPA has considered all these and other comments related to this first theme. EPA disagrees with comments that characterize FDEP’s reference sites for streams as “pristine” or suggest that the reference streams reflect the natural condition of those waters. Thus, EPA also disagrees with comments that suggest that EPA’s criteria would result in impairment of “pristine” waters. EPA points out the following lines of evidence to support this position. First, EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmarks reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the benchmark approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula Regions. This modified benchmark approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershedland cover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition. Because EPA has relied on this more stringent process for selecting leastdisturbed sites, there is more certainty in the consistency of that population with protection of designated uses and there is more confidence for using the 90th percentile. In the West Central Region, EPA used the SCI reference approach detailed in the proposed and final rule because there was an insufficient number of benchmark WBIDs identified in that region. EPA selected the 75th percentile for the SCI approach population consistent with recommended national guidance to provide a reasonable consideration of inherent uncertainty in condition associated with a biologically healthy population only. EPA was not confident that nutrient levels associated with a higher percentile, e.g., the 90th percentile, would be sufficiently protective of aquatic life in the West Central, based on the SCI population given the inherent uncertainties in the process, and EPA’s statutory and regulatory responsibility to promulgate water quality criteria that are fully protective of the designated use. In the same vein, EPA received comments arguing that, under the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, some reference or pristine waterbodies would be deemed to be impaired. Some of this perception seems to have been the result of analyses by FDEP and others of the number of FDEP reference waterbodies that would not meet the proposed criteria. First, there are likely no pristine waterbodies, defined as that reflecting the original pre-human state, left in Florida. The impacts of centuries of human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere have made the existence of pristine conditions essentially extinct in Florida. Even Florida’s original benchmark site population, presented as pristine, contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmarks reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor, however, EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered that several of FDEP’s benchmark reference sites were included on the State’s section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various reasons, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairments. The salient point is that any conclusion of the number of “reference” waterbodies that would be deemed impaired depends on a careful and accurate depiction of reference and the conclusions using the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3580Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams population originally presented by FDEP presented issues that were problematic. EPA is using a modified benchmark approach for its final criteria that addresses many of these problematic screening issues. That modified approach is described above and in more detail in the final rule and final rule TSD. Also related to this first theme, EPA disagrees with comments that assert impairment of reference sites based on error rate analyses described in the comments. EPA views the type of analysis suggested in the comment as inappropriate and flawed because these analyses proposed calculating error rates using traditional statistical assumptions about attainment and non-attainment. EPA observed that there are no true independent “attaining” or “non-attaining” populations upon which to test the criteria because criteria do not yet exist, therefore these tests are invalid. The concept of false positive and false negative rates is predicated on the assumption that an independent assessment of the attainment and non-attainment is available. For example, to estimate the false positive rate of a diagnostic test, physicians observe whether patients actually contract a disease. In the case of nutrient criteria, the reference distribution is the only means of defining attainment and non-attainment. Hence, any discussion of false positive or false negative rates is not relevant. Further under this first implementation theme, some commenters argued that some streams would meet the criteria yet still display unhealthy biological conditions and that, therefore, implementation of the criteria should require biological validation that waters attaining the criteria are in fact healthy. EPA agrees it is possible that some streams would meet nutrient criteria yet still display unhealthy conditions but disagrees with the reasons why and the implication. There are many stressors that threaten aquatic life. Nutrient criteria are meant to protect against the effect of elevated nutrients on aquatic life. The criteria cannot control for other stressors which may also result in unhealthy conditions. Moreover, it may be that some streams meet the criteria and still contain unhealthy conditions due to nutrients. The approach for criteria derivation used here could potentially result in nutrient impacts below the proposed criteria. EPA has attempted to minimize that risk with the approach used in the final rule based on stringent criteria, biological screens, and higher percentiles but it is not a guarantee that our generally applicable criteria are most appropriate for every individual stream. In a case where the proposed criteria are proven not to protect aquatic life from nutrient effects, then site-specific criteria can be set to provide more protective criteria. 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. Requiring independent validation of biological impairment would, ostensibly, invalidate the need for protective nutrient criterion to protect aquatic life. The last argument under the first implementation theme was that EPA’s proposed approach for derivation of numeric nutrient criteria assumed elevated nutrient levels are responsible for impairment when they may not be and/or that it is impossible to determine if designated uses will be protected. EPA disagrees 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3581Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams scientific knowledge that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and detrimental biological responses existsand that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement. EPA received related but distinct comments that stressorresponse 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. Such an approach concludes that concentrations observed in least disturbed reference populations known to be unimpaired by nutrient impacts would continue to protect designated uses from nutrient impacts. The basis for this is articulated in the EPA nutrient criteria guidance documents. As noted above, the final rule provides flexibility for the any entity to submit SSAC for waterbodies where additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. SSAC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal numeric criteria. The second comment theme under implementation relates to the cost of regulation. Commenters argue that local and state governments will spend a lot of money to come up with site-specific criteria within the very broad regions established to set the proposed criteria and that this will squander resources that could be used to correct true impairments. EPA disagrees and believes the resultant criteria will be sufficiently protective across the broad NWRs and the criteria will identify true impairments, obviating the need for site-specific criteria except where necessary. Indeed, EPA expended great effort with the classification element to minimize the need for site-specific criteria. Where local and state government determines a SSAC is necessary to most appropriately address specific waterbodies, the development of those SSAC should cost roughly the same as what it would cost to develop the appropriate limits under the narrative nutrient criteria. The extent of impacts due to nutrient enrichment in Florida and across the nation is substantial. EPA agrees that the efforts to solve this pressing problem will involve an investment of resources. But EPA hopes all parties agree such investments are necessary to protect our vital resources from the pervasive effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution that is clearly evident in Florida and across the country.

Comment IDs: 1414-1.001.006, 1464-2.001.031 Response: EPA received several comments related to the TN and TP criteria and their appropriateness for criteria setting. The first of these argued that TN and TP were not predictive of steam health or stream impairments attributable to excessive nutrients. EPA disagrees with this assertion. There is a well established, sizeable body of scientific knowledge including both experimental and observational studies that has unequivocally established a cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses in streams, 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, Slavik et al. 2004, Cross et al. 2006, Mulholland and Webster 2010). 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3582Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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.. A second comment argued that it may be more appropriate to use alternative approaches to address increased biomass in streams, such as restoring retention time or limiting light. EPA again disagrees and has continued to use a regional reference condition based approach for deriving the final criteria as detailed in the final rule and final rule TSD. First, the comment implies nutrients are not responsible for excess algal growth, which is not accurate. As noted in several other responses and detailed in the proposed and final rule and proposed and final rule TSD, there is ample scientific evidence that nutrient enrichment contributes to excess algal growth and other stream ecosystem impacts. Second, riparian and stream restoration that restore retention time and lower light levels, where natural, might reduce some excess algal biomass but would more importantly improve overall stream quality independent of nutrient effects. However, this restoration will have only limited effect on reducing nutrient pollution in streams, merely passing the effects on to downstream ecosystems, which EPA is also required to protect. Lastly, while algae are certainly an important avenue through which nutrients impact streams, they are not the only avenue. Microbes, such as bacteria and fungi, also increase their productivity in response to nutrient enrichment and this detrital enrichment can also alter stream ecosystems (Cross et al. 2006, Rosemond et al. 2001, Rosemond et al. 2002). Increasing retention time and woody inputs would provide a milieu to manifest the effects of microbial enrichment from excess nutrients on stream ecosystem condition. A third comment was that TN criteria should be adjusted for color and wetland presence. This comment was based on evidence presented of the relationship between percent wetland, color, and TN concentrations, more specifically organic N concentrations which can dominate the TN pool in some regions. This relationship would imply an effect of natural organic N sources on TN dynamics that could be controlled through classification using color. EPA has chosen to use the same regionalization for TN criteria as it used for TP criteria. EPA recognizes that the original and revised regionalization relied heavily on underlying geological differences among regions that resulted in spatial differences in expected instream TP concentrations. Instream TN concentrations did not differ as strongly across these same regions as TP, and EPA received comments on the proposed rule that noted this difference and suggested that EPA consider alternative regionalizations for TN. EPA considered these comments and considered various options. For example, EPA observed that TN concentrations were associated with stream color, but EPA also noted that basing TN criteria on color assumes that changes in stream color are predominantly due to natural causes. Some variations in stream color, and associated changes in TN, are indeed due to natural variations in hydrology, geology, and vegetation, but in other cases these variations can be attributed to anthropogenic effects such as runoff or effluent. EPA could not sufficiently address these concerns with the data available at this time. As a result, EPA chose not to pursue a color-based TN criterion at this time. However, EPA would consider such an approach for site-specific criteria derivation where a color-TN relationship can be affirmed as being independent from anthropogenic influence. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA also considered fewer stream Nutrient Watershed Regions for TN. EPA’s analysis of the stream TN data indicated that the two Panhandle NWRs, Panhandle East and West, exhibited TN concentrations lower than non-Panhandle NWRs (see final rule TSD), which led EPA to consider two NWRs instead of five. However, EPA’s statistical modeling indicated that a five NWR model explained no more or less variability than a two NWR model (see final rule TSD); this indicates that either approach is defensible. As a result, for consistency in application of criteria and in deference to the co-limiting nature of TN and TP, EPA has decided that similar regionalization for TN and TP is both defensible and protective of designated uses. A fourth comment in this general theme was that the criteria established for TN and TP are overprotective because the criteria

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3583Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams assume all forms of N and P contribute to water quality impairments in streams. EPA has a national policy of setting nutrient criteria for TN and TP. The basis for this policy is documented in the national nutrient criteria guidance documents. The last set of comments in this theme argues there are no documented benefits of TN reduction beyond that obtained through TP reduction. EPA disagrees. There is ample evidence in the literature that TP and TN both limit productivity in stream systems (Elser et al.1990, Lohman et al. 1991, Francoeur 2001, Stelzer and Lamberti 2001, Elser et al. 2007). Reductions in both TN and TP are necessary, therefore, to control effects of excess productivity. Moreover, in streams naturally elevated by reactive P geology in Florida, which are concentrated in certain regions but present in places along the length of Florida, N limitation is most likely present and N reductions in such systems would reduce nutrient impacts. For this reason, EPA is finalizing both TP and TN criteria.

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.047 Response: EPA received comments that the TMDL process should be used to protect waterbodies from nutrient impairment and not the changing of water quality standards. EPA disagrees. EPA has made it a national priority to develop numeric nutrient criteria to protect designated uses of the nation’s waters given the compelling and present effect of nitrogen/phosphorus pollution. The basis and process for this decision is well laid out in several documents, including the national nutrient criteria guidance documents. EPA agrees that the TMDL process will be an important component of the recovery of waters from nutrient enrichment, but TMDLs are developed once waters are placed on the CWA section 303(d) list for failure to meet water quality standards. The goal of the CWA and EPA’s implementing regulations is to prevent waterbodies from becoming impaired, in part through establishment of water quality criteria established at levels that protect designated uses.

References: 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 Bothwell, M.L. 1985. Phosphorus limitation of lotic periphyton growth rates: an intersite comparison using continuous-flow troughs (Thompson River system, British Columbia). Limnology and Oceanography 30:527-542 Bourassa, N., and A. Cattaneo. 1998. Control of periphyton biomass in Laurentian streams (Quebec). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:420-429 Bowling, L.C., and P.D. Baker. 1996. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 643-657 Cross, W. F., J. B. Wallace, A. D. Rosemond, and S. L. Eggert. 2006. Whole-system nutrient enrichment increases secondary production in a detritus-based ecosystem. Ecology 87: 1556-1565 Dodds, W.K., and D.A. Gudder. 1992. The ecology of Cladophora. Journal of Phycology 28:415-427 Elwood, J.W., J.D. Newbold, A.F. Trimble, and R.W. Stark. 1981. The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers. Ecology 62:146-158 Elser, J.J., E.R. Marzolf, and C.R. Goldman. 1990. Phosphorus and nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth in the freshwaters of North America: a review and critique of experimental enrichments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 1468-1477 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 production in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3584Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams ecosystems. Ecology Letters 10: 1135-1142 Francoeur, S.N. 2001. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: detecting and quantifying subtle responses. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 358-368 Gaiser, E.E., Trexler, J.C., Richards, J.H., Childers, D.L., Lee, D., Edwards, A.L., Scinto, L.J., Jayachandran, K., Noe, G.B., Jones, R.D., 2005. Cascading ecological effects of low-level phosphorus enrichment in the Florida Everglades. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:717-723. Lohman, K., J. R. Jones and C. Baysinger-Daniel. 1991. Experimental evidence for nitrogen limitation in northern Ozark stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:14-23 Moss, B., I. Hooker, H. Balls, and K. Manson. 1989. Phytoplankton distribution in a temperate floodplain lake and river system. I. Hydrology, nutrient sources and phytoplankton biomass. Journal of Plankton Research 11: 813-835 Mulholland, P.J. and J.R. Webster. 2010. Nutrient dynamics in streams and the role of J-NABS. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 100-117 Notestein, S. K., T. K. Frazer, M. V. Hoyer, and D. E. Canfield, Jr. 2003. Nutrient limitation of periphyton in a spring- fed, coastal stream in Florida, USA. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 41:57-60. Peterson, B.J., J.E. Hobbie, A.E. Hershey, M.A. Lock, T.E. Ford, J.R. Vestal, V.L. McKinley, M.A.J. Hullar, M.C. Miller, R.M. Ventullo, and G. S. Volk. 1985. Transformation of a tundra river from heterotrophy to autotrophy by addition of phosphorus. Science 229:1383-1386 Rosemond, A. D., P. J. Mulholland, and J. W. Elwood. 1993. Top-down and bottom-up control of stream periphyton: Effects of nutrients and herbivores. Ecology 74: 1264-1280 Rosemond, A. D., C. M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, and M.J. Paul. 2001. A test of top-down and bottom-up control in a detritus-based food web. Ecology 82: 2279-2293 Rosemond, A. D., C. M. Pringle, A. Ramirez, M.J. Paul, and J. L. Meyer. 2002. Landscape variation in phosphorus concentration and effects on detritus-based tropical streams. Limnology and Oceanography 47: 278-289 Slavik, K., B. J. Peterson, L. A. Deegan, W. B. Bowden, A. E. Hershey, J. E. Hobbie. 2004. Long-term responses of the Kuparuk River ecosystem to phosphorus fertilization. Ecology 85: 939 - 954 Stelzer, R. S. and G. A. Lamberti. 2001. Effects of N:P ratio and total nutrient concentration on stream periphyton community structure, biomass, and elemental composition. Limnology and Oceanography 46:356-367 

# III.C.6 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES Comment ID 0186-1.001.006

Author Name: DuVal C. Organization: I also question the limitation of the proposed new rule to just the State of Florida. If the January 14, 2009 determination is sound, then why limit the jurisdiction of the proposed rule to the State of Florida? If your concern is the water quality of Florida bodies of water, then this proposed rule must also cover the states of Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Mississippi for these states send runoff nutrients into Florida water. 

# Comment ID 0503.001.003

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3585Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Larson W. Organization: Fair Play. Florida is not a stand-alone universe. We exist as part of a nation and a larger world. Florida communities and business must compete with national and international concerns. To place standards on Florida not expected of other states is to lessen our ability to compete. It would be a lack of "fair play". I would propose that no "restoration standards" be set unless they could be established for all states at the same time. 

# Comment ID 0508-1.001.006

Author Name: Wilson M. Organization: Florida Chamber of Commerce

• Watersheds in Georgia and Alabama would appear to require their own regulations by EPA because waters from these states will have to meet the more stringent standards when they reach Florida, yet EPA has thus far failed to propose any such regulations. 

# Comment ID 0509-1.001.004

Author Name: Garza, Jr. A. Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works Per FDEP Secretary Michael Sole, the proposed EPA numeric nutrient criteria would have the following ramifications "On average 80% of Florida's most pristine rivers/streams will be deemed impaired based on downstream protection values: 1) Requires remediation actions that are not necessary 2) Demands development of site specific alternative criteria to correct flaws in criteria methodology 3) Potential to cause harm to economically important biological resources (i.e. oyster beds)" Should you have any questions or if I could provide additional insights with regard to subject topic please feel free to call at 850-435-1755 or email at agarza@ci.pensacola.fl.us 

# Comment ID 0584-1.001.006

Author Name: Holly C. Organization: Florida Association of Counties We are particularly concerned that 80% of DEP's reference waters would not meet downstream protection values under this proposed rule. Several of these waters are in fully protected and publicly-owned lands. This is a clear indicator that something is wrong with the methodology being used to derive the numbers.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3586Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 0590.001.009

Author Name: Conner R. Organization: Lakeland Water Utilities (8) While I'm sure a detailed examination may find some minor exception, Florida waters stay in Florida until they reach the sea. There is no significant inter-State fresh-water transmittal of pollutants introduced into Florida waters. The flows of both groundwater and surface water are directed to the coast within the State. However, across the northern tier of Counties, significant flows are directed into Florida. As the Agency has no regulation proposed to control the quality at the State line, it is fully expected that whatever is in the waters as it enters Florida from Georgia and Alabama will preclude the waters from meeting the Florida standard regardless of any efforts made inside Florida. 

# Comment ID 0601.001.002

Author Name: Kelley H. Organization: We protest the following:
1. The proposed rules only apply to the State of Florida, they do not apply to any of the other 49 states. We believe that this may be a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. 

# Comment ID 0615.001.001

Author Name: Campbell C. Organization: St. Marys River Management Committee I am sending this email on behalf of the St. Marys River Management Committee to express the committee's concerns about the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient water quality standards for flowing waters within the state of Florida. The St. Marys River Management Committee is an intergovernmental entity of elected and appointed members from four counties along the St. Marys River including Charlton and Camden counties in Georgia, and Nassau and Baker counties in Florida. The committee meets regularly to discuss, develop and implement plans and programs in regard to the St. Marys River. As the St. Marys River forms a portion of the boundary between Florida and Georgia, regulations implemented by, or upon, one of the states can have an impact on the other border state. Therefore, we urge the EPA to consider the interstate implications that may arise if and when the proposed numeric nutrient criteria become law in the state of Florida.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3587Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 0620.001.002

Author Name: Kelly H. Organization: Fort Walton Beach Tea Party We believe the proposed rules are only applying to the state of Florida and do not apply to the other 49 states, we believe this may be a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. 

# Comment ID 0651.001.002

Author Name: Ghent R. Organization: CF Industries As a long-term partner in the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the Nitrogen Management Consortium, CF has invested time and money over the last 20 years to improve nutrient levels in Tampa Bay as well as in the Peace River Basin. I also serve on the Peace River Basin Management Advisory Committee and the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Citizens Advisory Committee, two organizations of diverse stakeholders dedicated to improving water quality in the Peace River watershed. These experiences have convinced me of the value of the collaborative approach to solving nutrient problems. CF and Floridians are committed to the concept of clean water. Look at the data trends on nitrogen and phosphorous in Tampa Bay and the Peace River Basin rather than listening to the rhetoric, and it's reasonable to conclude that these trends show steady improvement. Sea grass populations, a useful biological indicator of water quality trends, are increasing in both estuaries. In Tampa Bay alone, sea grass beds have increased from 14,208 acres in 1952 to nearly -- to over double, 29,647 acres today. I respectfully disagree with the Agency's contention that Florida's nutrient problems are so widespread and that our efforts are too slow in addressing the issue of nutrient contamination. 

# Comment ID 0658.001.002

Author Name: Lowery T. Organization: So instead of reading what I wrote, what I want to do is just to kind of let's talk about what this feels like. It's been stated several times, and I think that it's an undeniable fact that in the State of Florida we have more water quality data than anyone else in the United States by far. And so what it feels like is the story that my husband told me. He said he was on a football team when he was in high school, and he showed up one Saturday for a practice and only about half the team showed up. And the coach got so mad that he made the folks that showed up run wind sprints the entire practice. And this is what it feels like to the businesses, to the local governments, and as a citizen, you know, I heard he was a fifth generation. I'm a fifth generation Floridian, and I'd like to see my children have clean water here in the State, so I'm not opposed to a numeric nutrient criteria. But what I'd like to see is us working together toward the same goal, just not

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3588Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams things imposed on us as a state, as a business, as a community. So we're looking for the opportunity to get some feedback that there are going to be timelines, that there are going to be things that we can do to work together; that we're not -- that you're just not going to make us run wind sprints. Because I agree with the gentleman ahead of me, it will put the State of Florida out of business in many ways. And I do have those concerns for my children who I would like to see stay here in the State of Florida. I do appreciate your time and concerns for the State of Florida and hope that you will take into serious consideration the things that have been said here today. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0668.001.004

Author Name: Mann D. Organization: Utility Council of the American Water Works Association In addition to that, Florida has a long reputation of doing excellent work in water quality. The TMDL program is one of the best in the country; and, of course, everyone wonders why Florida was singled out as the only state to go forward in this. 

# Comment ID 0669.001.003

Author Name: Langford L. Organization: Alabama -- Choctawhatchee River runs right on Alabama. We've got nutrients coming in from there. How do you assess my responsibility for cleaning up their water? It seems that there's an unfair burden coming down on us that just seems unattainable for me to have to go all the way to the state line and start going farm by farm and looking at, well, these guys are going to have to clean up this much, these guys are going to clean this much. How do you assign and mitigate the water coming out of Alabama? How do we clean it up? 

# Comment ID 0684.001.003

Author Name: Fraleigh J. Organization: I will say in conjunction to that we are in Madison County and Gadsden Counties and most counties we are border counties, and obviously there is another state above us that has no way of regulating it and attributaries and nitrates that infiltrate our state due to what's going on north of us. And to think we can regulate that and we're not in conjunction in communicating with that on a state-by-state level, I think we're fooling ourselves to think that it's all based in Florida and Florida alone. Florida is the natural protector from nutrient pollution that is the reason why thirty percent of the natural water quality data is from Florida and it's 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, business, and local governments have invested millions to restore impaired watershed, protect healthy rivers and streams.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3589Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 0687.001.002

Author Name: Joneck D. Organization: Florida Growers Landscape and Nursery Association I have questions about the TP and TN coming in from Georgia and Alabama, and how that is going. Does it suddenly become new water, Florida water, and then we have to then clean it up as it goes downstream? And it has to get cleaner and cleaner and cleaner, and I understand that, but what happens at the border? This concerns me. 

# Comment ID 0692.001.001

Author Name: Diamond C. Organization: Florida Department of Community Affairs Good evening. My name is Craig Diamond and I'm here on behalf of the Florida Department of Community Affairs. I don't have so much comment as a request for information that perhaps Mr. Keating clarity on. I had the pleasure of navigating the 197-plus page rule in the numerous references to the phrase "land use" and context of nutrient loading, and with respect to model that's applied. But there was no specific equation captured in the proposed rule, in the docket or the methodology as it was outlined. There was reference to an external model, but there was difficulty and going ahead and trying to find that through EPA's site. So there was a shortage in information. My interest is in understanding the land use water quality link in the context of the proposed rule, and as it might end up affecting local land use decision making and in form potential state use planning regulations. So if you could perhaps shed some light on that, that would be greatly appreciated. 

# Comment ID 0694.001.002

Author Name: Cullen D. Organization: Sierra Club Florida Tonight I want to talk a little bit about downstream numbers. We think that it's best to stop pollution at the source. The various entities, and wastewater treatment, agriculture, residential, it's listed in your powerpoint at the beginning, have externalized the cost of their behaviors and sometimes of their businesses to their downstream neighbor. And eventually the estuaries and coastal waters. These are the areas that -- first of all, it's not fair to push their pollution downhill. Water flows. You have to deal with a downstream effects of nutrient pollution. And it has a profound effect on both the interior of state with respect to the -- particularly the Caloosahatchee and the St. Lucy Rivers when Lake Okeechobee flows with significant rain, and also to all of the coastal waters. Our tourist economies, the beaches, so we urge you to stick with it, to stand strong. And we appreciate that you're here, and we have great confidence that you will promulgate good rules. Thank you.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3590Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0698.001.005

Author Name: Provenzano S. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC And, finally, the proposed rule uses inappropriate models to arrive at downstream protective values that have a 30­ percent margin of error. 

# Comment ID 0702.001.001

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Kelli Levy with Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management. First of all, we do agree and support restoration objectives for Florida's water resources. But we are very concerned with the technical deficiencies in this current proposal for numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters and specifically with the downstream protective values for receding waters. 

# Comment ID 0704.001.001

Author Name: Glicksberg D. Organization: Hillsborough County Public Works Department Good afternoon. My name is David Glicksberg and I am here today representing the Hillsborough County Public Works Department with regard to stormwater. The following comments are provided to express our concern with the downstream protective value being put forth by EPA in their proposed rule on water quality standards for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. 

# Comment ID 0716.001.004

Author Name: Coughenour F. Organization: Plant City Regarding the pending downstream protective standards, if the standards are anymore strict than the instream standards right now, it's very likely it would cripple our whole facility and would require another major upgrade. 

# Comment ID 0720.001.002

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3591Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Selph J. Organization: Citizens of Charlotte County Farm Bureau I oppose this first because the State of Florida is being singled out, absolutely. 

# Comment ID 0721.001.006

Author Name: Johns F. Organization: Lykes Brothers, Inc. The last thing I want to touch on, and probably the most important, is the competitive disadvantage that could potentially be brought to Florida agricultural producers as a result of this regulation. Florida agricultural will be at a competitive disadvantage relative to other states and countries if it is subjected to increased compliance costs as a result of EPA's numeric nutrient criteria. If the cost of compliance makes various agricultural activities unprofitable, it is conceivable the producer will either shift production into another commodity that will bear the cost of compliance, shift land use into use that will bear the cost of compliance, development, or relocate operations somewhere elsewhere where the cost of compliance is less, in other words, leave Florida. 

# Comment ID 0726.001.003

Author Name: Price J. Organization: Rayonier In addition, the rule is silent on the matter of interstate waters, although drainage basins extending into Alabama and Georgia are clearly included. Regional regulation of nutrients is beyond the scope of this rule, leaving north Florida at a disadvantage from both an environmental and economic standpoint. The EPA should explain the means by which interstate issues will be addressed, so the public, including landowners such as Rayonier, can assess the impact. 

# Comment ID 0732.001.008

Author Name: Fulford C. Organization: Congressman Adam Putnam Furthermore, the proposed rule does not adequately account for nutrients which flow into Florida from neighboring states. Floridians will be forced to bear the burden for pollution caused by residents of other states. The foreseeable conflicts this will create between our neighboring states is like watching a slow-moving train wreck. 

# Comment ID 0743.001.009

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3592Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Rossman D. Organization: DCR Services The EPA should support Florida and not single Florida out for federal standards that will cause a further loss of jobs in Florida. Thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns and allowing me to participate in this process. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0750.001.003

Author Name: Handley J. Organization: To think that a rule is going to be imposed on Florida and when you go across the I-10 ribbon, waters come in from Georgia and Alabama, we can't control that, but we're at the mercy of what comes to us. 

# Comment ID 0767.001.006

Author Name: Hurley M. Organization: NAIOP Central Florida Four, Florida should be considered as a receiving state. Particular attention should be given to the fact that Florida is a receiving state of interstate waters. Attention should be given to receiving waters and estuaries downstream and Florida should be considered as such as it downstream from its neighboring states. Without upstream controls, it would make the burden of meeting downstream criteria difficult and detrimental to Florida, its people and its industries. 

# Comment ID 0778.001.004

Author Name: Collins J. Organization: Benefits versus cost. Where is the point of diminishing returns? Are we -- a gentleman talked about the law of unintended consequences. I only had this morning at lunch a half an hour, maybe some of this is moot, but to read over this rule. You talk about DPVs, Downstream Protection Values. The law of unintended consequences. You're passing rules but are you creating a geographic, advantageous or a disadvantage in that if somebody has a dirty operation and it's at Jacksonville close to the ocean, are you going to create -- because of the way you've put thresholds for these nutrients, are you going to create an economic advantage for that person to move his operation to a pristine area, the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3593Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams headwaters? Oh, great. We just made an economic advantage in this environment. People will move. And instead of having people decrease the overall pollutants, you've taken dirty operations from -- you know, there shouldn't be -­ there's a fairness aspect but there shouldn't be a capitalist economic advantage to take a dirty operation from a downstream area where everybody has been dumping stuff in the river and move to a pristine area. You're creating -­ you know, that isn't the intent, but that's the law of unintended consequence. 

# Comment ID 0795.001.007

Author Name: McCarthy L. Organization: Lykes Brothers You'll also put Florida agriculture at a competitive disadvantage relative to other states and countries by implementing it if we're subject to increased compliance costs as a result of this. What that would do if it's unprofitable in Florida, we're going to either shift to another commodity, and companies like mine who are fairly low intensive, we're going to go to much higher intensive and you'll have a lot of intended consequences associated with that, or it will be relocated to other parts of the country or state or out of the country, and you'll have a food source that's not necessarily -- maybe not very safe. 

# Comment ID 0796.001.007

Author Name: Albergo N. Organization: HSA Engineers and Scientists EPA is proposing to use an equation to adjust instream total phosphorous criteria to protect downstream lakes, and a different methodology to adjust instream total nitrogen criteria to insure protection of water quality standards for downstream estuaries. Putting aside the complexity of the methods, and maybe I missed it, but I can't even clearly distinguish the application of estuarine from freshwater standards. The rules talk about what is predominant, but salinity levels change with the tide and season and geographically. 

# Comment ID 0803.001.002

Author Name: Fernandez J. Organization: HSA Engineers and Scientists The most troubling aspect of the document I feel is the downstream protection values and how they were derived. I found in reviewing it that it's very confusing. There's enumerable assumptions and a model utilized quite extensively that I think experts would agree is kind of on the margin of applicability for this particular situation. And I'd just say if I can't understand it or I find it confusing, then people that are going to be affected by this as a regulation definitely find it

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3594Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams confusing, and I think EPA needs to take some special effort after these workshops of really defining that better because if people don't understand something, they're suspicious of it, and this is something that is not very understandable. Another area that I think is people are looking at this as a be all to end all. Established numeric criteria is going to be a new forefront in regulation, and I think as EPA indicated in their objective slide, it's a target, it's a tool, and I think by establishing downstream protection values and so on, I think you're taking it too far. I always felt that if we had a loading, a permissible loading for an estuary. We were at a good level to implement a control program. EPA has taken some of these loadings and they've made assumptions and so on, working back to a concentration. I think that's almost a step backwards. If we got a protective loading for a body of water like a TMDL or a permissible loading for an estuary, why are we working so hard to come up with a concentration which is just a number, it's just a numeric number. 

# Comment ID 0837.001.003

Author Name: Butler R. Organization: I don't have a problem competing when I'm competing with someone or in a game of any sort that I'm competing under the same rules as everybody else is. I've dairied for the last 22 years under a different set of rules than competitors 45 miles in each direction have been under. I don't feel like the state needs to be under this, too. The State of Florida does not need to operate under different rules than other states in this country. That's wrong. We've dealt with it in the dairy business. I will say that I produce less milk today than I did 25 years ago because of the economic burden of dealing with environmental issues that don't make my dairy any money. They allow me the right to stay here where I was born and raised. That's all I've ever done. I don't want to dairy in Georgia, I don't want a dairy in Idaho, I don't want to dairy in Utah. There's no market. We've supplied milk all my life for the Miami market. That's why we elected to stay here when these programs came available. We felt we had the land mass available to do these projects and we implemented them. They have been hard on our business. 

# Comment ID 0847.001.002

Author Name: Koch J. Organization: And there again, allowing a lot of polluted water to come down into our rivers and streams and estuaries makes these attractions less attractive to their customers and people don't come to Florida and the coastal businesses lose money. So pollution is kind of a transfer payment or a way that people upstream can dump part of the cost of their operations on the people downstream. 

# Comment ID 0883.001.008

Author Name: Lynch T.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3595Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Palm Beach County League of Cities, Inc. WHEREAS, due to the above-referenced litigation, the State of Florida is the only state that has been singled out by the EPA with these imminent deadlines and federal oversight; 

# Comment ID 0895.001.002

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous Organization: Myth: All states are obligated to meet such water regulations. Fact: Florida would be the only state singled out by the EPA with these strict deadlines and stern federal oversight ­ despite the fact that our state has been a national leader in enforcing aggressive water quality standards to protect our streams, lakes, rivers and estuaries. Moreover, these restrictions would make Florida - which would be the only state forced to meet such stringent regulations - solely responsible for cleaning rivers and other waterways that have been polluted by other states . 

# Comment ID 0895.001.004

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous Organization: Myth: Imposing new federal restrictions on Florida will set a positive example for other states. Fact: Due to Florida's leadership in improving water quality over the past decade, our state actually accounts for more than a third of all the nutrient-related water-quality samples in the national water quality database. It is an ironic and disappointing twist of fate that this initiative to improve our scientific knowledge about the health of our state's waters has made it easier for groups such as EarthJustice to punish Florida through the legal system with these extremely costly water restrictions. This turn of events is all the more unfortunate because other states will now be less likely to invest in more aggressive efforts to improve their own water quality if they see a national leader such as Florida have our hard work used against us to impose such unfair and expensive water restrictions. 

# Comment ID 0895.001.012

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous Organization: How will this lawsuit affect water quality in other states?

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3596Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Due to Florida's leadership in improving water quality over the past decade, our state actually accounts for more than a third of all the nutrient-related water-quality samples in the national water quality database. However, it is a disappointing fact that this initiative to improve our scientific knowledge about the health of our state's waters has actually made it easier for groups such as EarthJustice to punish Florida through the legal system with these extremely costly water restrictions . This turn of events is all the more unfortunate because other states will now be less likely to invest in more aggressive efforts to improve their own water quality if they see a national leader such as Florida have our hard work used against us to impose such unfair and expensive water restrictions . 

# Comment ID 0895.001.017

Author Name: Commenter Anonymous Organization: How many other states would be subject to such federal regulations? As it stands, Florida would be the only state singled out by the EPA with these strict deadlines and stern federal oversight - despite the fact that Florida has been a national leader in enforcing aggressive water quality standards to protect our streams, lakes, rivers and estuaries . Not only would Florida be the only state forced to meet such stringent regulations, but these restrictions would make Florida and its citizens responsible for cleaning rivers and other waterways that have been polluted by other states . 

# Comment ID 0899.001.003

Author Name: Bartz R. Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce

• Florida should not be Singled out from other states as e.g. George and Alabama watersheds flow into our state. 

# Comment ID 0901.001.006

Author Name: Brant T. Organization: American Health Trust, Inc. and Santa Fe Lake Dwellers Association Florida is NOT being singled out by EPA to establish NNS. Nine states have already adopted some or all parameters for their rivers.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3597Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0942.001.006

Author Name: Reed K. Organization: CURRENT METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT NOT WORKING I do not believe you will have success with the current methods of enforcement, no matter how you rephrase the rules. I heard that you were told that the DEP in our area (Northwest Florida) couldn't control the pollution because most of the watersheds are outside their jurisdiction, and I believe they told you the truth. For watershed management, I believe the biosystems involved would be much more manageable if there was a separate DEP department for each watershed, including all waterways within that watershed in the same jurisdiction. That would mean that the Choctawhatchee Basin (where I am from) would have its own division and not have to rely on an office an hour and a half's drive away, in a community with a much larger population, (and more pollution problems than we have) to monitor and protect our water quality. 

# Comment ID 0949.001.002

Author Name: Kelley H. Organization: Fort Walton Beach Tea Party We protest the following:
1. The proposed rules only apply to the State of Florida, they do not apply to any of the other 49 states. We believe that this may be a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. 

# Comment ID 0950.001.006

Author Name: Glicksberg D. Organization: Hillsborough County Public Works Department The following comments are provided to express our concern with the Downstream Protective Values being put forth by EPA in their proposed rule on Water Quality Standards for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. 

# Comment ID 0951.001.008

Author Name: Berry A. Organization: Hillsborough County Water Resource Services

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3598Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The following comments are provided to express our concern with the Downstream Protective Values being put forth by EPA in their proposed rule on Water Quality Standards for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters. 

# Comment ID 0955.001.003

Author Name: Putnam A. Organization: United States House of Representatives Furthermore, the proposed rule does not adequately account for nutrients which flow into Florida from neighboring states . Floridians will be forced to bear the burden for pollution caused by residents of other states . The foreseeable conflicts this will create between our neighboring states is like watching a slow moving train-wreck. 

# Comment ID 0956.001.001

Author Name: White C. Organization: Washington County Cattlemen's Association I have serious concerns about EPA's proposed numerical nutrient standards that apply to Florida, but no other state. Most experts' reports I have read state the numeric nutrient criteria may be nearly impossible to meet and will certainly be incredibly expensive to implement, thereby causing severe economic harm to agriculture. This will put Florida agriculture at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the country where numeric nutrient standards do not exist. 

# Comment ID 0964.001.004

Author Name: Price J. Organization: Rayonier The proposed rule has serious consequences for rural land owners. For example Rayonier's forests are spread over seven major drainage basins. Under the proposed rule the majority of flowing waters in these regions will be labeled as impaired for nutrients, although many, if not all, are actually healthy. A finding of impairment can trigger new restrictions on land use and forest operations, further limiting the economic value of timberland ownership. Under the proposed rule land owners must either accept these restrictions or engage in expensive studies to prove that the nutrient criteria are wrong. In addition, the rule is silent on the matter of interstate waters although drainage basins extending into Alabama and Georgia are clearly included. Regional regulation of nutrients is beyond the scope of this rule, leaving north Florida at a disadvantage from both an environmental and economic standpoint. The EPA should explain the means by which interstate issues will be addressed so the public, including landowners such as Rayonier, can assess the impact. 

# Comment ID 0973.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3599Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Nartowicz S. Organization: This is insane. I am tired of the Federal Government sticking their nose in the States affairs. The Federal Government, as usaul, never addresses the real problem. The states above Florida should be held responsible for conforming to the regulations of the EPA, both local and Federal. We get all the pesticides, chemical and other garbage from every state north of Florida and we should not be the state required to do the clean up. If they were conforming our water would be better than any other state. I am a homeowner and pay enough for water. Water should be free! It is a necessity for life. 

# Comment ID 0984.001.001

Author Name: MacDiarmid J. Organization: Should Florida be responsible for all the items that are deposited in Northern states via rivers and streams that flow into Florida? I would think EPA would be concerned with water that enters Florida to be sure it met all EPA standards so we would be on a level playing field. Singling out Florida to standards that our not OUR doing is not fair. I believe that Florida is doing alot of envirnmental work to achieve clean water, as it is to the benefit of Florida to have the water we drink to be the best it can be. 

# Comment ID 1050.001.001

Author Name: Cooper J. Organization: Good evening. My name is Jim Cooper, and I'm a 46-year resident of Florida, 16 years in the past full-time. I'm also president of Lemon Bay Conservancy, and Protect Our Watersheds. We are quite concerned about the unnecessary and harmful nutrient and fertilizer and phosphate pollution of our Florida waters. We strongly support what you mentioned today, which is your new program of Downstream Protective Values because, as Commissioner Judah said, we downstream people are forgotten about, but we're feeling the impacts and we're feeling the pain. 

# Comment ID 1098-1.001.005

Author Name: Vance A.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3600Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: City of Bonita Springs

• Downstream Protection Values - we receive storm water, concern. Without a site specific analysis to take into considerations the particular water body, concern the rule limits the ability to achieve compliance. 

# Comment ID 1099-1.001.001

Author Name: Ern, Jr. R. Organization: Booth, Ern, Straughan & Hiott, Inc. on behalf of Resorts Development Group II, LLC Please be advised of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed water quality standards for the State of Florida as these standards could have an impact on the Alabama waterbodies. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) has not yet determined ifthese standards would affect your facility; however, since your discharge is located in close proximity to Florida waters, ADEM is providing this information below. 

# Comment ID 1099.001.001

Author Name: Ern, Jr. R. Organization: Booth, Ern, Straughan & Hiott, Inc. on behalf of Resorts Development Group II, LLC One of my clients received the attached letter from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management relating to the proposed new rules for Florida waters. A surface water discharge wwtp which I designed ultimately connects to a Florida water, even though the discharge is located in Alabama. Can you tell me how the new criteria (which I assume is still being developed) for the State of Florida will affect our facility in Alabama? Should we assume that when the new rules are enacted, the ADEM will be required to force our facility to upgrade (if necessary) in order to provide effluent which meets discharge limits for Florida? Since we are so far upstream/upriver from the Florida water to which we ultimately discharge, that the effects would be negligible, but I'm trying to get a better handle on how it affects us. Any input would be much appreciated. Thanks, 

# Comment ID 1230.001.006

Author Name: Craw V. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District The group of water bodies designated by E.P.A. as belonging to the Bone Valley nutrient watershed region should be expanded to include water bodies that originate and flow out of the region as well as water bodies that receive flow from Bone Valley tributaries. E.P.A. should use all available site-specific information to develop downstream protective values.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3601Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1242.001.002

Author Name: LarsenWalker M. Organization: So naturally, the waters of the Hillsborough River and other water bodies and waterways do not distinguish county of original. So if Manatee County, for example, or -- contributes overly nitrogen-polluted water to Bone Valley rivers and the Tampa Bay, the efforts to purify the waters of this region by fertilizer-compliant counties will be nullified. Okay? 

# Comment ID 1261-1.001.003

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County 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. Volusia County is also very concerned about how spring discharge within our jurisdictional limits will be considered. As can be from Figure 2, there are springs on the western side of Volusia County whose springsheds contain areas outside of Volusia County's jurisdiction. How can the County be held accountable for nutrients levels in our spring-fed surface waters where we have no control of land use practices, groundwater inputs and stormwater management in areas of the springshed outside of our jurisdiction? Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2 showing springs in Volusia County. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3602Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1287-1.001.004

Author Name: Purvee L. Organization: Wastewater Treatment Plant # 2, City of Mount Dora Public Works and Utilities It is also unsettling that Florida is the only state in the union that is undergoing this scrutiny. If the EPA is going to pass this ruling, then the EPA should have it pertain to every state. Of course, if that happens, every other state will be writing letters similar to this one. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.004

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District Several major river systems in the panhandle originate in Georgia and Alabama with watersheds with fine clay soils that are transported downstream and contribute significant sediment load across the state borders into Florida. These rivers would be at or near the concentration limits proposed by EPA and as such would not provide any buffer for Florida as the downstream state to attain lower concentration as the water from the upstream states flows across state lines. 

# Comment ID 1301-1.001.007

Author Name: Hodge R. Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated Florida dairies in the Suwannee River Basin, in North Florida, are concerned that they will have difficulty attaining the proposed standards because more than half of the Suwannee River Basin lies in Georgia. Two major tributaries in Georgia, the Alapaha and Withlacoochee rivers, make up 38 percent of the entire watershed and receive runoff from areas outside of Florida. Water entering Florida will not be in compliance with the EPA rule, however, Florida farmers and communities will be burdened with the task of meeting the EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria. That is not possible, practical and fair. 

# Comment ID 1301-1.001.009

Author Name: Hodge R. Organization: Southeast Milk Incorporated Lastly, EPA recently indicated in a letter to DEP their intention not to proceed with the adoption of downstream protection values at the present time, for a number of reasons. Thus, I will not focus on how this standard when eventually applied to the overall standards will be more costly and impractical to comply. However, if EPA does impose

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3603Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams these standards in upstream waters, DEP states: "On average 80% of Florida's most pristine rivers/streams will be considered impaired based on downstream protection values". This is a significant concern to SMI, and the dairy farms represented. We will address these concerns in greater detail during the next phase of the rule process. Should EPA formally decide to recede from its letter to DEP and not remove downstream protection from this rulemaking docket, SMI requests that the comment period be reopened to allow comment on that portion of the rule. 

# Comment ID 1319.001.005

Author Name: Bouyounes M. Organization: Bouyounes Turpentine and Kettle Company Criteria would of necessity affect both states of boundary rivers, thus eliminating years of expensive and destructive interstate conflict. This is exactly where the federal government should be involved in our business, where individual states do not have clearly delineated control. A state cannot control only their half of a river. 

# Comment ID 1338-1.001.013

Author Name: Champion T. Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC Impacts on Mills in Alabama and Georgia Proposal: EPA has proposed numeric nutrient water quality criteria for rivers and streams (flowing waters) in the Panhandle including downstream protective values for lakes and estuaries that may be impacted by streams and lakes in Alabama and Georgia. Comment: The numeric nutrient criteria proposed for Florida impacts lakes and streams that flow into the state from Alabama and Georgia. EPA has not explained how these rules will be applied in those states nor fully engaged those states in the rulemaking process. GP has a mill in Brewton, Alabama that discharges into the Conecuh River. The Conecuh River merges with the Little Escambia River to form the Escambia River which flows into Escambia Bay. GP has a second mill in Cedar Springs, Georgia that discharges into the Chattahoochee River which flows into Lake Seminole. The lake is mostly in Georgia, but portions are in Alabama and Florida. Lake Seminole empties into the Apalachicola River at the Georgia-Florida border. The Apalachicola River flows into Apalachicola Bay. The proposed criteria for the Escambia and Apalachicola Rivers are a TN of 0.824 mg/l and a TP of 0.043 mg/l. The downstream protective values (DPV) for TN appear to be ~ 1⁄2 of the proposed criteria at the state borders. Our understanding is that Lake Seminole would have to meet the criteria for a clear, acidic lake. A draft TMDL currently exists for Escambia Bay and GP is working with EPA, Florida DEP and other stakeholders to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3604Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams finalize waste load allocations. A preliminary analysis by the stakeholder group postulates that the DPVs will drastically reduce the likely waste load allocations of the TMDL: these arbitrarily-chosen DPVs proposed by EPA are values halfway between estimates of current loads and non-anthropogenic loads. Our preliminary estimates are that it will cost our Brewton Mill approximately $40 million in treatment system upgrades to comply with the draft TMDL. The DPVs proposed by EPA would require further reductions in our waste load allocations that may be unnecessary and result in significantly higher additional costs which do not produce an environmental benefit. The proposed rule's impact upon the Cedar Springs Mill is less clear. Lake Seminole is not currently listed as impaired. If the proposed criteria are adopted, we understand that the lake would have to drastically reduce its total phosphorous levels, even though the typical site-specific considerations for the lake would not justify those reductions. As indicated by Entrix, Inc. in the FPPAEA comments, nutrient reductions upstream of Apalachicola Bay could result in a detrimental impact on the ecosystem through a loss of oyster productivity in the bay. The draft rulemaking may have a significant impact on dischargers outside the State of Florida. GP urges EPA to fully analyze and specifically disclose these impacts to those affected before moving forward with proposed numeric nutrient criteria. The lack of public notice in those states as to the impact of the proposed regulation on point and nonpoint sources is a serious procedural defect in the process. Likewise, EPA has failed to account for economic impacts in those states required by other statutes and executive orders. 

# Comment ID 1346-1.001.013

Author Name: Still D. Organization: Suwannee River Water Management District 7. More than half of the Suwannee River Basin lies in Georgia. Two major tributaries in Georgia, the Alapaha and Withlacoochee rivers, make up 38 percent of the entire watershed and drain urban areas and areas of intensive agriculture. Affected parties in Florida will be accountable for inputs beyond their control. 

# Comment ID 1347.001.002

Author Name: McAuley R. Organization: Alabama Pulp & Paper Council While the proposed regulations are for Florida waters, we have concerns for the one mill that discharges into a water near the Alabama/Florida line (Georgia-Pacific in Brewton, Alabama), and for the very questionable standard setting process that EPA is imposing on an already established state program. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.012

Author Name: Barnes F.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3605Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division 5-3) An analysis of the nutrient data for several Georgia streams that flow into Florida, which include dischargers from wastewater treatment plants, indicates nutrient concentrations above the proposed criteria. In order to meet permit limits necessary to achieve the proposed Florida criteria, wastewater treatment plants will be required to upgrade their current treatment technology, which will cause an unncessary economic burden on many dischargers in Georgia. This severe financial responsibility may come without the assurance of the desired water quality improvedments, as a result of overprotective criteria that are not linked to a biological response. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.020

Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division However, EPD is concerned about, and in opposition to, the stringent levels proposed by EPA for nutrients in Florida. An analysis of the nutrient data for several Georgia streams that flow into Florida, which include dischargers from wastewater treatment plants, indicates nutrient concentrations above the proposed criteria. In order to meet permit limits necessary to achieve the proposed Florida criteria, wastewater treatment plants will be required to upgrade their current treatment technology, which will cause an unnecessary economic burden on many dischargers in Georgia. This severe financial responsibility may come without the assurance of the desired water quality improvements, as a result of overprotective criteria that are not linked to a biological response. 

# Comment ID 1355-1.001.010

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Downstream Protective Values (DPVs): DPVs should not be lower than adjacent undisturbed watershed nutrient levels. Natural contributions to a downstream body should not be considered impairment. If data for surrounding undisturbed watersheds conflicts with the adopted NNC, this should be sufticient justification for approval of a Provisional SSAC. 

# Comment ID 1359-1.001.019

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition H. Application to Upstream Dischargers Nowhere in the NPRM does EPA suggest that its proposed criteria will be applicable anywhere but Florida. All of the analyses in the docket pertain to Florida waters and the preliminary economic analysis, discussed below, looks only at

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3606Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams impacts to Florida entities. However, EPA has publicly stated that it intends to require dischargers in upstream states that discharge into waters that eventually flow into Florida to comply with these proposed criteria. If EPA it proceeds with this regulation, it should clarify its intent. If the intent is to apply the proposed criteria to upstream dischargers, EPA should examine the potential impacts of that application in both its technical and economic analyses. 

# Comment ID 1359-1.001.058

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition Seventh, if EPA intends to apply its federal criteria in upstream states, it must fully engage those states in its rulemaking process. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.014

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works pg. 11 "Rather, the proposed values represent the output of a systematic and scientific approach that was developed to be generally applicable to all flowing waters in Florida that terminate in estuaries for the purpose of ensuring the protection of downstream estuaries." Change "applicable to all flowing waters" to "applicable to all flowing fresh waters" to reflect the fact that in Florida there are some marine and estuarine canals which are flowing waters. 

# Comment ID 1433-1.001.013

Author Name: McIndoe J. Organization: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Summary The Alabama Department of Environmental Management appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments regarding EPA's proposed numeric nutrient criteria for the State of Florida. EPA's actions are significant, far-reaching, and will prove far more costly than estimated with little environmental benefit in many cases. ADEM especially urges EPA to reconsider the proposed Downstream Protection Values criteria because there is not a scientific basis for establishing two different criteria for waters, one for the protection of near-field effects and one for downstream effects. In deriving a criterion that is protective of downstream uses, EPA must use a scientifically defensible approach that allows for the determination of how nutrients will impact designated uses in the downstream waters. The tool that EPA has used to establish the DPVs for estuaries does not have that capability.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3607Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1443-1.001.007

Author Name: * * Organization: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

- The EPA basis for protection of downstream protection values was arbitrary and oversimplified without any clear defense for their selection. 

# Comment ID 1464-1.001.043

Author Name: Ettinger A. Organization: Mississippi River Collaborative et al. Further, we agree that EPA should establish stream standards for protection of downstream lakes and estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1471.001.002

Author Name: Authors Multiple Organization: Mass Comment Campaign Sponsoring Organization Unknown 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1473-1.001.017

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 2. EPA's proposed criteria create a conflict between water quality standards and TMDLs. EPA's proposed nutrient standards for Florida also embrace a new interpretation of EPA's water quality standards regulations in the development of downstream protection values (DPVs). EPA's new interpretation of its water quality standards regulations creates a conflict between section 303(c) of the CWA and section 303(d) of the Act. Accordingly, EPA's proposed DPVs should be withdrawn. EPA water quality regulations state that designated uses and the criteria to protect those uses must take downstream waters into consideration to provide for attainment and maintenance of downstream waters. 40 C.F.R. 131.10. However, EPA has consistently taken the position that: "adoption of criteria that represent ‘minimally impacted' conditions and that are sufficiently protective of near field downstream effects should ultimately achieve a far field

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3608Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams benefit." See Grubbs 2001, at 17. If it proves to be the case that further reductions are needed to protect downstream waters, those reductions should be based on an allocation of nutrient loadings. "If the cumulative impact of multiple "minimally impacted" conditions in the watershed results in adverse effects on far field estuary conditions, then further nutrient load reduction may be necessary, and would likely be phased in over a period of time based on specific load reduction targets for the ultimate receiving water body." Id. (emphasis added). 

# Comment ID 1473-1.001.035

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Seventh, if EPA intends to apply its federal criteria in upstream states, it must fully engage those states in its rulemaking process. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.024

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute H. Application to Upstream Dischargers. Nowhere in the NPRM does EPA suggest that its proposed criteria will be applicable anywhere but Florida. All of the analyses in the docket pertain to Florida waters and the preliminary economic analysis, discussed below, looks only at impacts to Florida entities. However, EPA has publicly stated that it intends to require dischargers in upstream states that discharge into waters that eventually flow into Florida to comply with these proposed criteria. If EPA it proceeds with this regulation, it should clarify its intent. If the intent is to apply the proposed criteria to upstream dischargers, EPA should examine the potential impacts of that application in both its technical and economic analyses. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.031

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 2. EPA's proposed criteria create a conflict between water quality standards and TMDLs. EPA's proposed nutrient standards for Florida also embrace a new interpretation of EPA's water quality standards regulations in the development of downstream protection values (DPVs). EPA's new interpretation of its water quality standards regulations creates a conflict between section 303(c) of the CWA and section 303(d) of the Act. Accordingly, EPA's proposed DPVs should be withdrawn.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3609Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

EPA water quality regulations state that designated uses and the criteria to protect those uses must take downstream waters into consideration to provide for attainment and maintenance of downstream waters. 40 C.F.R. 131.10. However, EPA has consistently taken the position that: "adoption of criteria that represent ‘minimally impacted' conditions and that are sufficiently protective of near field downstream effects should ultimately achieve a far field benefit." Grubbs 2001, at 17. If it proves to be the case that further reductions are needed to protect downstream waters, those reductions should be based on an allocation of nutrient loadings. "If the cumulative impact of multiple "minimally impacted" conditions in the watershed results in adverse effects on far field estuary conditions, then further nutrient load reduction may be necessary, and would likely be phased in over a period of time based on specific load reduction targets for the ultimate receiving water body." Id. (emphasis added). 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.044

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Seventh, if EPA intends to apply its federal criteria in upstream states, it must fully engage those states in its rulemaking process. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.101

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute As part of EPA's assessment of DPVs for lake protection, EPA employs a series of models that use TP as the proper nutrient for controlling plant growth. These assessments include the Vollenweider model and the State of Florida's MEI model. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4186, 4188. Both of these models have been used and documented to predict the ability to control chlorophyll a levels through TP reductions. None of these analyses show that effective reductions can be achieved through TN control and it is widely recognized that reduced TN levels may promote harmful algal blooms Consequently, the administrative record does not support limiting TN to control algal growth. In addition, the TSD at 1­ 11 recognizes that regulating TN may contribute to promoting toxic algal blooms, since blue-green algae that produce toxins adversely impacting both fish and humans may obtain their nitrogen directly from the atmosphere. Limiting water column levels of TN provides an environment favorable to blue green algal growth. Florida DEP has already experienced adverse effects from regulating nitrogen to fresh waters. EPA's approach would broadly cause TN levels to decrease throughout Florida and could promote adverse effects on a statewide basis. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.137

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3610Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The following briefly addresses key additional flaws with the stream-DPV approach. Based upon these basic flaws and misplaced evaluation methods, this entire segment of the proposed rules should be withdrawn. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.138

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 1. DPVs are broadly overprotective and unnecessary for use protection. National Criteria guidelines applicable to all criteria development specify that significant over and under regulation should not result from criteria application. EPA's selection of over a dozen assumptions, most assuming the worst case, ensures that this principle is violated. Consistent with the National Guidelines, if EPA is concerned about downstream protection, it must tailor the assumption to apply only to specific waters fitting the narrow assumptions used to derive the numbers. Moreover, to avoid mis-regulation, EPA must first confirm that the lake is actually suffering non-natural, excessive plant growth before any requirement to reduce upstream sources may be imposed. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.139

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 2. Scientific methods for DPV development are not consistent with accepted scientific methods for criteria derivation or necessary for use protection. Criteria development is required to be tied to use protection and a reliable pollutant impairment demonstration. This requires some type of cause-and-effect demonstration. The stream-DPV approach is not tied to any actual demonstration that lakes are impaired under the conditions evaluated by EPA. In fact, no attempt was made to demonstrate that lake impairment is even likely when stream flow to a lake is significant. Absent this critical demonstration this approach has no objective scientific cause-and-effect basis. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.141

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 4. EPA's assumption that that stream concentrations in all watersheds of the State are at the 75th percentile background concentration and should be compared to the 25th percentile of acceptable concentrations in lakes broadly overregulates nutrients. The statistical assumptions built into the stream-DPV calculations ensure arbitrary overprotection. EPA assumes the allowable, safe in-lake nutrient concentrations will cause impairment and that stream inflow concentrations occurring in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3611Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams only 25 percent of streams will occur in all streams. Nowhere does EPA provide support for these two basic assumptions used in the DPV assessment. These arbitrary assumptions produce unnecessarily restrictive DPV criteria. DPV are required only, if at all, where necessary to protect downstream waters. Making conservative and clearly incorrect assumptions does not provide a demonstration that criteria resulting from such analyses are necessary to protect downstream waters. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.142

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 5. EPA's approach involves speculative assumptions on pollutant impacts, fate, and transport with no objective basis to assess the reasonableness of the assumptions. As noted above, there are no fewer than eleven assumptions build into EPA's DPV assessment. Most of these assumptions are demonstrably incorrect. Nonetheless, this compounding of conservative assumptions is improper and does not reflect use of the best available scientific information or provide a substitute for developing the type of information necessary to support reliable criteria analyses. The fact that EPA believes a more refined approach may be "difficult" does not grant EPA authority to ignore critical factors and insert unsupported assumptions in place of necessary data. 

# Comment ID 1475-1.001.017

Author Name: Arrington D. Organization: Loxahatchee River Environmental Control District Why has EPA chosen to publish numeric nutrient criteria only in Florida? 

# Comment ID 1480-1.001.009

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport 4. The City of North Port is located within the Bone Valley region within the Big Slough Watershed which spans 200 square miles starting in the Desoto County and include Manatee and Sarasota County. Surface water runoff and ground water contributions in the Big Slough Watershed are collected in the Big Slough Canal (a.k.a. Myakkahatchee Creek) which traverses through North Port and is used by the City as the primary potable-raw-water supply. Upstream of the City boundaries, is an abundance of agricultural activities and lands owned by phosphate mining companies. Specific language should be included in the EPA NNC rule that will not hold a municipality responsible for upstream contribution of nutrient concentrations or loads that the municipality cannot control.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3612Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.014

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida C Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria would be Undermined if Wastewater and Stormwater Permitting Only Accounts for Direct Discharge to lmpaired Waterbodies Rather than to Any Impaired Downstream Waterbodies. FDEP advised wastewater industry stakeholders at the 2/26/10 Numeric Nutrient Criteria workshop that the numeric nutrient criteria would not apply to their discharges if they are directly discharging to an unimpaired waterbody, specifying that the TMDL process will identify and address such sources. This is an erroneous approach in that it undermines appropriate pollution source controls to be designed into a project to prevent impairment of downstream waterbodies. The Clean Water Act rules are clear that upstream pollution cannot be permitted that would cause or contribute to violations of downstream water quality standards even if there is no violation in the immediate receiving water. [18] [18] 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d). 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.050

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida We also want to commend EPA for incorporating the concept of downstream protective values (DPVs) in addressing the criteria needed to ensure that downstream water quality is sufficiently protected through proper source control and upstream water quality criteria. Though consideration of part of this proposal has been deferred to be concurrent with the estuarine criteria, we would strongly support EPA incorporating DPVs - applying them to the currently the Stream Criteria with adjustments as needed. 

# Comment ID 1482-1.001.054

Author Name: Hecker J. Organization: Conservancy of Southwest Florida While an improvement over our existing nitrogen water quality criteria, the total nitrogen streams criteria may be too lenient to sufficiently protect downstream estuaries and nearshore waters of the Bone Valley and Peninsula regions (see more in the following Section Ill - Implementation section) due to existing excessive nutrient enrichment (evidenced by red tides being observed in 22 of the last 23 years within the region between Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor, EPA's Bone Valley subregion) [4]. Likewise, while the proposed criteria for total phosphorus are an improvement, they may not be stringent enough to protect certain downstream waters, such as Lake Okeechobee, from further nutrient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3613Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams pollution.[5] This is due to Lake O's lake criteria for TP, assuming it is a colored lake, is 50 ppb, which is higher than the basis for the Lake O TMDL, which is 40 ppb. Thus, more protective criteria should also be considered for sensitive or threatened waterbodies. [4] Steidinger, et al., March 8, 1999. Harmful Algal Blooms in Florida. Submitted to Florida's Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force by the Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force Technical Advisory Group. P.4. [5] South Florida Water Management District, 2010 South Florida Environmental Report, SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL.


# Comment ID 1496.001.004

Author Name: Henry A. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1497.001.004

Author Name: Thomas C. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1498.001.003

Author Name: Remer M. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1499.001.004

Author Name: Thuemler R.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3614Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: 1. It is extremely imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1500.001.004

Author Name: Dowdell M. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1501.001.003

Author Name: Copps J. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1502.001.005

Author Name: Bell J. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1503.001.003

Author Name: Anglin P. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3615Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1504.001.003

Author Name: Lane R. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1505.001.003

Author Name: Dugger D. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1506.001.003

Author Name: Huckaby V. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1507.001.003

Author Name: Watford N. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries. This spans state lines, particularly in the ACF basin where pollution from spray fields along the Flint River and industrial/waste in the Chattahoochee directly impact the Apalachicola River. 

# Comment ID 1508.001.003

Author Name: Knutson J. Organization:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3616Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1509.001.003

Author Name: Walker J. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1510.001.003

Author Name: Rieveschl A. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1511.001.003

Author Name: Calhoun B. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1559.001.004

Author Name: Bonde J. Organization: Village of Wellington -The proposed rule utilizes downstream protection modeling that was not developed or intended to be used as proposed . 

# Comment ID 1614-1.001.005

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3617Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: DeBogory P. Organization: South Florida Water Management District We have two other comments on the proposed rule. First, we believe that the rule is arbitrary because it only applies to the State of Florida. The data on EPA's own website shows that Florida is not the state with the most nutrient impaired water bodies...that distinction goes to the State of Pennsylvania. If one state had to be selected to implement NNC before all of the others, you would assume that the state with the most nutrient impaired water bodies would be first on the list. 

# Comment ID 1615-1.001.023

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Public Works Volusia County is also very concerned about how spring discharge within our jurisdictional limits will be considered. As can be from Figure 2, there are springs on the western side of Volusia County whose springsheds contain areas outside of Volusia County's jurisdiction. How can the County be held accountable for nutrients levels in our spring-fed surface waters where we have no control of land use practices, groundwater inputs and stormwater management in areas of the springshed outside of our jurisdiction? Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1 - Volusia Land Cover. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information for springs in Figure 2. Volusia County Springs by Volusia County. 

# Comment ID 1641-1.001.006

Author Name: Littrell J. Organization: Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System For example, EPA's models do not appear to account for nutrient flux from atmospheric deposition, the Gulf of Mexico or nutrient inputs from adjacent states, Alabama and Georgia. We would request the EPA address these larger issues such as nutrient loadings from the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico. It is possible that these nutrient loads have a tremendous impact on Florida's ability to maintain lower levels of nutrients in its waters. An approach by the Federal Government that considers Florida individually is flawed because of Florida's relationship to other states and the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Gulf Stream. Therefore, EPA's micro management approach to Florida will be extremely costly and has a high potential to not meet EPA's expectations. 

# Comment ID 1647-1.001.006

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3618Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association Of additional concern is the fact that Florida, being the sole state that the EPA criteria would currently apply to, would have to contend with the clean up and removal of excess nutrient loads from upstream rivers and stream flowing south from the unregulated states of Georgia and Alabama. How can the EPA mandate criteria for Florida when its northern watersheds and hydrological features are inextricably linked to its neighboring states? This puts undue regulatory stress on those industries and agricultural operations within the state which might be located downstream from Georgia and Alabama. Even if they are capable to comply with the proposed regulations and can reduce the nutrient levels of their offsite discharges to meet the EPA's criteria, if both Georgia and Alabama are not obligated to a similar standard, then these operations' efforts will not be adequately reflected in the N and P levels of these water bodies. The only way to ensure these rivers and streams are in regulatory compliance is to enforce similar criteria within these northern bordering states. If this action is not undertaken, the most probable outcome would be a multitude of costly lawsuits against Georgia, Alabama, their upstream industries and operations, and the EPA. 

# Comment ID 1712-1.001.005

Author Name: Temple A. Organization: B&W Quality Growers, Inc. Finally since this rule will apply only to the state of Florida, it will be our responsibility to clean waters entering our state from Alabama and Georgia. We understand the need to keep our waters clean; however, we believe that a local approach to the various watersheds would be better. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.029

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida

- FDEP's assessment of the reference sites that were used to develop State criteria indicated that 80% of the reference sites will not attain the EPA downstream protection values for TN, 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.033

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida Proposed Criteria Must Be Appropriate

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3619Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

• The proposed NNC generally hit the mark for regional in-stream standards based upon a number of comparisons,

• However, when the criteria are used within the context of the downstream protection overlay, they appear to become overly protective when translated upstream for purposes of establishing end-of-pipe discharge concentrations, [See Example No.2]

• The SPARROW model is inappropriate for the State of Florida. Modelers with the U.S. Geological Survey and EPA's own Science Advisory Committee have expressed concerns over its use for determining impairments in Florida. It was designed for large, regional watersheds like the Mississippi River Basin. It should be reconsidered with respect to its usefulness in simulating TN and TP concentrations in Florida streams.

• The downstream protection overlay approach, combined with the requirement that MS4 discharges achieve end-of-the pipe compliance with the proposed NNC, effectively precludes the development of more cost effective regional treatment facilities. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.036

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida

• Even though the criteria need to be expressed in terms of concentrations, they need to meet the mark in terms of loads. It does not appear that Downstream Protection Values are achievable and would be better left to the TMDL process. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.037

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida EPA would appear to be required to also regulate a number of watersheds in southern Alabama and southern Georgia since waters from these states will have to meet EPA's proposed NNC when they enter Florida. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.103

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(6) Protection of Downstream Lakes and Estuaries Statement: Rather, the proposed values represent the output of a systematic and scientific approach that may be generally

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3620Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams applicable to all flowing waters in Florida that terminate in estuaries for the purpose of ensuring the protection of downstream estuaries. EPA is interested in obtaining feedback at this time on this systematic and scientific approach. Comment: It is premature to propose DPVs prior to finalization of estuarine values. EPA states: "these proposed nitrogen downstream protection values are based on substantial data, thorough scientific analysis, and extensive technical evaluation." The estuarine DPV approach seems to have only relied on the SPARROW model and does not represent the ‘weight-of-evidence' approach favored by EPA. EPA states: "the proposed values represent the output of a systematic and scientific approach that may be generally applicable to all flowing waters in Florida that terminate in estuaries for the purpose of ensuring the protection of downstream estuaries." ATM disagrees with this statement and EPA did not make use of the wealth of data and analyses available to them via FDEP. The issuance of a NODA (notice of data availability) is beneficial. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.032

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Finally, another unresolved issue relating to EPA's proposed approach for protecting downstream uses is its potential impact on upstream state standards. If EPA intends to apply the federal criteria in upstream states, it must fully engage those states in its rulemaking process. 

# Comment ID 1787-1.001.007

Author Name: Spratt J. Organization: Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association Of additional concern is the fact that Florida, being the sole state that the EPA criteria would currently apply to, would have to contend with the clean up and removal of excess nutrient loads from upstream rivers and stream flowing south from the unregulated states of Georgia and Alabama. How can the EPA mandate criteria for Florida when its northern watersheds and hydrological features are undeniably linked to its neighboring states? This puts an inequitable an undue regulatory stress on those industries and agricultural operations within the state which are located downstream from Georgia and Alabama. Even if Florida's agricultural, municipal and industrial stakeholders are capable to comply with the proposed regulations and can reduce the nutrient levels of their offsite discharges to meet the EPA's criteria, if both Georgia and Alabama are not obligated to a similar standard, then these operations' efforts will not be adequately reflected in the N and P levels of these water bodies. The only way to ensure these rivers and streams are in regulatory compliance is to enforce similar criteria within these northern bordering states. If this action is not undertaken, the most

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3621Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams probable outcome would be a multitude of costly lawsuits against Georgia, Alabama, their upstream industries and operations, and the EPA. 

# Comment ID 1789-1.001.003

Author Name: Dozier J. Organization: Georgia Association of Water Professionals and Georgia Member Association of the Water Environment Federation II. CONSIDERATION OF EFFECT ON USERS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS WITHIN THE STATE OF GEORGIA Ephraim King, Director, Office of Science and Technology, EPA Office of Water on April 21, 2010 stated his belief, at a National Clean Water Agencies meeting concerning the proposed Florida rule, that upstream States have the responsibility to meet downstream States' water quality standards. EPA's Office of Inspector General believes that an upstream State has responsibility to meet a downstream standard. It details this belief in a section entitled "EPA Needs to Ensure that States Consider the Impact of Nutrient Pollution on Downstream Waters in Other States" from EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards (Report No. 09-P-0223, August 26, 2009). In part that section states: "EPA's Region 4 Nutrient Coordinator said discussions had occurred within EPA and with the States regarding the impact of upstream State nutrient standards on downstream waters. But no final resolution had been made as of the end of 2008. Florida State officials also indicated that they have conversed with Georgia, Alabama, and EPA but also indicated that no final decisions had been made. The States we reviewed did not appear to be motivated to improve nutrient water quality standards for protection within their own borders let alone for States downstream. The CWA gives EPA the authority to review and approve State water quality standards. EPA can disapprove State standards which do not meet EPA regulations, such as requiring the attainment and maintenance of water quality standards downstream". EPA should, prior to finalizing the proposed rulemaking for Florida, resolve the question of the impact of downstream State standards on upstream States' standards. If EPA then finds that upstream States are responsible for downstream State water quality standards then further public hearings and comment period should be required so that upstream State water users, such as those in Georgia, have been fully and properly considered as to how they would be affected legally and financially. 

# Comment ID 1790-1.001.005

Author Name: Rota M. Organization: Gulf Restoration Network

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3622Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

2. Downstream uses must be protected. States are required to protect for downstream uses when assessing the quality of their waters. This is particularly true with nutrient pollution, as the impacts of nutrients often manifest themselves downstream of pollution sources. The poster-child of this is the Dead Zone in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, but Florida's lakes and estuaries also offer numerous examples of downstream impacts of nutrient pollution. This is why we encourage EPA to continue the development of downstream criteria in addition to more traditional in-stream criteria. If EPA is to truly embrace a "watershed approach," downstream protections are vital. 

# Comment ID 1797-1.001.003

Author Name: Braswell S. Organization: Florida Farm Bureau Due to the fact that the State of Florida has been a leader in water quality restoration, this unilateral regulation is unfairly targeting Florida for its efforts. Not only will Floridians be responsible for cleaning up waters within the state, Floridians will also be responsible for waters that flow into the state from our neighbors in Georgia and Alabama, who are not held to the same stringent standards proposed for the State of Florida. 

# Comment ID 1834-1.001.008

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

• If a reference site approach is used to derive criteria, then the application of the criteria is inherently protective of downstream waters. Thus the application of thc EPA-proposed Downstream Protection Values results in overly protective, unnecessary and arbitrary criteria. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.026

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Overly Protective Nature of Proposed Downstream Protection Values The application of the proposed Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) results in overly protective and arbitrary criteria. This overall comment is supported below by the following individual comments: 1.The translation of DPVs for lakes to their tributaries needs to consider in-stream losses of phosphorus to avoid being overly protective;

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3623Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

2.The analysis of the adequacy of the proposed TP criteria for streams to protect downstream lakes is based on the Vollenweider 1976 phosphorus loading model and is simplistic, superficial and scientifically unimpressive to the point of the criteria being arbitrary; and, 3.The use of a Reference Site approach is inherently protective of downstream waters.


# Comment ID 1834-4.001.029

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 3. The use of a Reference Site approach is inherently Protective of Downstream Waters If it is assumed that a reference site approach is used derive criteria, then the application of the criteria is inherently protective of downstream waters. In 2008, the FDEP conducted an extensive study of two minimally impacted river/estuary systems: the Waccasassa River and Estuary; and, the Steinhatchee River and Estuary. They concluded from this study that the use of the reference stream approach to establish in-stream nutrient criteria, when based on the 90th percentile of the reference site distribution, are protective of the biological integrity of sensitive downstream waters. Therefore, the application of the EPA-proposed Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) results in overly protective, unnecessary and arbitrary criteria.



# Comment ID 1970.001.004

Author Name: Clevenger C. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Comment ID 1972.001.002

Author Name: Ross A. Organization: The EPA needs to mandate strong numeric nitrogen and phosphorus criteria for all of Florida?s waters. These findings should not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3624Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1974.001.003

Author Name: Lucky H. Organization: 1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries. My lake is not stream-fed but has obvious problems. 

# Comment ID 2045-1.001.003

Author Name: Tonsmeire D. Organization: Apalachicola Riverkeeper Based on the proposed EPA standard, water entering the Apalachicola from upstream, out of state sources could result in a violation. EPA necessarily should intervene into situations where this is the case and pursue appropriate requirements for the upstream states before any consequences are imposed against Florida. Specific language to that effect should be incorporated into the proposed rule. Comparable standards should be imposed on the upstream states as well. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.036

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries

• The determination applies only to Florida. 

# Comment ID 2233.001.016

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries -EPA should abandon its DPV concept and allow the State's existing TMDL Program to control and implement protection of downstream waters. 

# Comment ID 2371.001.001

Author Name: Johnson C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3625Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Gulf Shores Utilities Gulf Shores Utilities' Water Reclamation Facility discharges into the Intercoastal Waterway in the State of Alabama. We hold a NPDES permit with Alabama Department of Environmental Management 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. The Board appreciates your assistance in this matter. 

# Comment ID 2407.001.003

Author Name: Brandt K. Organization: I would first like to emphasize that I am in support of EPA establishing strong numeric nitrogen and phosphorus criteria for all of Florida?s waters. That being said, I would like to offer these additional comments:
1. It is imperative that numeric criteria not only protect specific streams, but also downstream receiving lakes and estuaries 

# Response Comment IDs: 0694.001.002, 1050.001.001, 1464-1.001.043, 1471.001.002, 2407.001.003 Response: EPA appreciates the comments supporting numeric water quality criteria and downstream protection values.

Comment IDs: 0651.001.002, 0702.001.001, 0973.001.001, 1433-1.001.013 Response: Thank you for your comments.

Comment IDs: 1353-1.001.012, 1353-1.001.020 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, that has unequivocally established a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3626Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams cause and effect relationship between nutrients and biological responses in streams, 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, Slavik et al. 2004, Cross et al. 2006, Mulholland and Webster 2010). EPA has concluded from this body of scientific knowledge that a cause and effect relationship between nutrient enrichment and detrimental biological responses existsand that nutrient reduction will result in environmental improvement. EPA received related but distinct comments that stressorresponse 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 IDs: 0658.001.002, 0950.001.006, 0951.001.008, 1098-1.001.005, 1099-1.001.001, 1474-1.001.137, 0704.001.001 Response: Thank you for your comment.

Comment IDs: 0895.001.004, 0895.001.012� Response: This is not a comment on the rule, but on Florida’s highly valuable data set. EPA considers such data collection essential to water quality programs, because that is the only means of deriving scientifically valid water quality criteria.

Comment IDs: 0658.001.002, 0720.001.002, 0743.001.009, 0837.001.003, 0883.001.008, 0895.001.002, 0895.001.017, 0899.001.003, 0956.001.001, 0973.001.001, 0984.001.001, 1287-1.001.004, 1614-1.001.005, 1797-1.001.003, 2233-1.001.036, 0503.001.003, 0668.001.004, 1475-1.001.017 Response: EPA disagrees that Florida is being unfairly singled out with this rulemaking. In consultation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), EPA determined in January 2009 that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary for Florida to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. In enacting CWA section 303(c)(4)(B), Congress authorized the Administrator of EPA to determine, in his/her discretion, that new or revised water quality standards are necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA, and for EPA to then "promptly" propose such standards and finalize them within 90 days of proposal. See CWA section 303(c)(4)(B). Thus EPA clearly has the statutory authority to promulgate water quality standards for a state or states where EPA determines that such standards are necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA. Also see response to comment 0560-1.001.003 regarding economic impacts relative to other states.

Comment ID: 0901.001.006�

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3627Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA agrees.

Comment IDs: 0601.001.002, 0620.001.002, 0949.001.002 Response: EPA disagrees that the Agency’s action in Florida constitutes a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the statutory and regulatory powers bestowed on EPA to promulgate water quality standards in a state or states where EPA determines that new or revised water quality standards are necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA. In enacting CWA section 303(c)(4)(B), Congress authorized the Administrator of EPA to determine, in his/her discretion, that new or revised water quality standards are necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA, and for EPA to then "promptly" propose such standards and finalize them within 90 days of proposal. See CWA section 303(c)(4)(B). Thus EPA clearly has the statutory authority to promulgate water quality standards for a state or states where EPA determines that such standards are necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA. Furthermore, as noted in CWA section 303(c)(4), the water quality standards promulgated in today's rule are "for the navigable waters involved". CWA section 502(7) defines "navigable waters" to mean "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas". Thus EPA's determination and final rule only apply to navigable waters, i.e., waters of the United States. (see response to comment ID 0549.001.001).

Comment ID: 0942.001.006 Response: Thank you for your comment. The organization of DEP is not determined by EPA

Comment IDs: 0186-1.001.006, 0508-1.001.006, 0590.001.009, 0669.001.003, 0684.001.003, 0687.001.002, 0726.001.003,0732.001.008, 0750.001.003, 0767.001.006, 0895.001.002, 0895.001.017, 0899.001.003, 0955.001.003, 0973.001.001, 0984.001.001, 1099.001.001, 1288-1.001.004, 1301-1.001.007, 1338-1.001.013, 1346-1.001.013, 1347.001.002, 1359-1.001.019, 1647-1.001.006, 1712-1.001.005, 1774-1.001.037, 1787-1.001.007, 1789-1.001.003, 1797-1.001.003, 2045­ 1.001.003, 2371.001.001 Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA expects that upstream waters must meet Florida WQS at the state line. In accordance with 40 CFR section 131.10(b), States must ensure that their water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream states. States upstream of Florida are also subject to permitting regulations that require imposition of permit conditions that ensure compliance with downstream standards. See 40 C.F.R. section 122.4(d).

Comment IDs: 0615.001.001, 1319.001.005� Response: Thank you for your comment. For waters that form boundary between states, such as the St. Marys River, EPA expects that Georgia waters must meet Florida WQS at the state line.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3628Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams
Comment IDs: 1338-1.001.013, 1359-1.001.058, 1473-1.001.035, 1474-1.001.044, 1786-1.001.032, 1789-1.001.003, 2371.001.001 Response: EPA has no specific requirement to involve upstream or affected states in rulemaking beyond soliciting public notice and comment on our proposed rule. EPA did solicit public notice and comment, which provided Georgia and Alabama an opportunity to provide the Agency with their comments on the proposed rule.

Comment IDs: 1242.001.002, 1261-1.001.003, 1615-1.001.023, 1480-1.001.009 Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA defers implementation of management actions across different counties to FDEP, but expects that water quality standards will be met in all applicable waterbodies.

Comment ID: 0692.001.001 Response: Land cover in the watershed and riparian corridor upstream of sampling sites was used to select benchmark sites for stream nutrient criteria (see TSD).

Comment ID: 1230.001.006� Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA received comments disagreeing with how the Agency decided to classify streams into Nutrient Watershed Regions (NWR). EPA has considered these and other comments. For the final rule, EPA has decided to split the Panhandle Region into West and East Regions and to restrict the size of the West Central (previously Bone Valley) Region.

Comment IDs: 1301-1.001.009, 1338-1.001.013, 1641-1.001.006, 1777-2.001.103, 1834-4.001.029� Response: Thank you for your comment. These comments pertain to the rulemaking for estuarine and coastal waters. 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 to review the Agency’s proposed rule at that time and to submit comments regarding DPVs for estuarine waters

Comment IDs: 0796.001.007, 1368-1.001.014 Response: Thank you for your comment. From the preamble: EPA’s final rule defines “lakes and flowing waters” (a phrase that includes lakes, streams, and springs) 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) waterbodies pursuant to rule 62-302.400, Florida Administrative Code

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3629Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams (F.A.C.), which are predominantly fresh waters, excluding wetlands. Class I and Class III surface waters share water quality criteria established to “protect recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife” pursuant to rule 62-302.400(4), F.A.C. Consistent with rule 62-302.200, F.A.C., EPA’s final rule 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). Consistent with rule 62-302.200, F.A.C., EPA’s final rule defines “surface water” to mean “water upon the surface of the earth, whether contained in bounds created naturally, artificially, or diffused. Water from natural springs shall be classified as surface water, at a site at which groundwater flows through a natural opening in the ground onto the land surface or into a body of surface water. In this rulemaking, EPA is promulgating numeric criteria for the following waterbody types: lakes, streams, and springs. EPA’s final rule also includes definitions for each of these waters. “Lake” means a slow-moving or standing body of fresh water that occupies an inland basin that is not a stream, spring, or wetland. “Stream” means a free-flowing, predominantly fresh surface water in a defined channel, and includes rivers, creeks, branches, canals, fresh water sloughs, and other similar waterbodies. “Spring” means a site at which groundwater flows through a natural opening in the ground onto the land surface or into a body of surface water. Consistent with rule 62-312.020, F.A.C., “canal” means a trench, the bottom of which is normally covered by water with the upper edges of its two sides normally above water.

Comment IDs: 0509-1.001.004, 0584-1.001.006, 1301-1.001.009, 1774-1.001.029� Response: Thank you for your comment. Secretary Sole’s comments were based on FDEP’s interpretation of EPA’s proposed draft criteria and DPVs for estuaries. 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: 1355-1.001.010, 1834-1.001.008, 1834-4.001.026, 1834-4.001.029,� Response: Thank you for your comments. EPA agrees that in most cases truly natural conditions should not be considered impaired, and that receiving waters in a completely undisturbed watershed would be adapted to the nutrient loads entering them. But EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. It may seem reasonable to assume that regional stream criteria, derived from benchmark sites, are protective of lake conditions. EPA does not believe that assumption has been demonstrated to be true. First, the criteria are derived from the 90th percentile of the benchmark stream distribution, so we know that almost 90% of benchmark streams have nutrient concentrations less than, not at, the criteria values. Some are well below. As an example, suppose a stream in the North Central stream nutrient region has a nutrient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3630Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams concentration at the 10th percentile of the regional benchmark distribution (e.g., 0.05 mg/L TP). Increasing the stream’s TP to the criterion limit (the 90th percentile; 0.35 mg/L TP in North Central) is a seven-fold increase. Without calculated DPVs, a downstream lake could thus be allowed to receive up to a seven-fold increase in TP loading, which would almost certainly have a deleterious effect on the lake. This effect can be magnified, since EPA’s criteria for lakes are, in some cases, more stringent than the final criteria for streams that flow into the lakes, and thus the instream criteria may not be stringent enough to ensure protection of WQS in certain downstream lakes. Even scientifically-derived boundaries of the stream nutrient regions are artificial: the boundaries are created for implementation of criteria and management, but we recognize that they divide continuous nature into fixed categories. We also recognize that the boundaries were developed based on real, imperfect information available at the time - new data may reveal the necessity for new categories, or shifting of boundaries. Streams meeting regional criteria may cause downstream impairment simply because it is not possible to devise a perfect classification based on real, imperfect data. Finally, there are other sources of nutrients (sheet flow runoff, groundwater, internal P loading) that are accounted for in a DPV development or a TMDL, but would negate the assumption that lakes receiving flow from streams meeting criteria automatically also meet their criteria. EPA agrees that, in some circumstances, site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) may be warranted to account for site-specific conditions. SSAC may be appropriate when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. EPA refers the commenter tothe preamble of the final rule, which discusses the federal site-specific alternative criteria process, in particular section V.C SiteSpecific Alternative Criteria, which explains a specific procedure, finalized in federal rule, for EPA adoption of site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC). EPA provides clarification on the roles and responsibilities of the Agency and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in administering this procedure, clarification regarding FDEP’s current regulatory SSAC process and how this process differs from EPA’s federal SSAC procedure, and the Agency’s authority to enact this procedure. EPA also provides additional guidance for a federal SSAC submittal. EPA notes that FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own rulemaking process at any time to establish a state SSAC process for nutrients, or other regulatory relief mechanisms, and may submit such mechanisms to EPA for review under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act.

Comment IDs: 0694.001.002, 0847.001.002, 1482-1.001.050, 1496.001.004, 1497.001.004, 1498.001.003, 1499.001.004, 1500.001.004, 1501.001.003, 1502.001.005, 1503.001.003, 1504.001.003, 1505.001.003, 1506.001.003, 1507.001.003, 1508.001.003, 1509.001.003, 1510.001.003, 1511.001.003, 1790-1.001.005, 1970.001.004, 1972.001.002, 1974.001.003� Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA appreciates the support and agrees with the comment.

Comment IDs: 1474-1.001.138, 1474-1.001.139� 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. The purpose of those WQS is to protect waters from becoming impaired.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3631Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.141� Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA is not able to evaluate this comment, because EPA made no distributional assumptions for calculation of DPVs.

Comment ID: 1774-1.001.033� Response: Thank you for your comment. Calculation of DPVs to protect lakes has been revised to use the BATHTUB model, and other appropriate models, based on a greater amount of site-specific information. This comment also appears to refer to the SPARROW model, which may or may not be used to develop DPVs for estuaries. 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 ID: 1482-1.001.054 Response: Thank you for your comment. 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. The Lake Okeechobee TMDL was based on extensive site-specific data and modeling, which are not appropriate in this stage of development of state-wide criteria. EPA agrees that TMDL targets have the potential to serve has SSAC for Lake Okeechobee. However, in light of the substantial information analyzed in conjunction with this rulemaking, and to ensure that a proper process of notice and comment is undertaken, EPA believes that the federal SSAC procedure in the final rule is the appropriate mechanism and means of incorporating TMDL targets into the federal WQS for Florida waters.

Comment IDs: 0509-1.001.004, 1338-1.001.013 Response: Thank you for your comment. The appropriate nutrient values to protect the aquatic life in estuaries will be considered in developing DPVs for estuaries. 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 ID: 1474-1.001.101� Response: Both nitrogen and phosphorus have been demonstrated to be limiting nutrients in Florida lakes. Water quality criteria are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3632Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams intended to protect state designated uses. That is, water quality criteria are to be set at levels that prevent waters from becoming impaired. If the aquatic life use criterion is exceeded, i.e., if the chlorophyll criterion is exceeded, then the lake in question is impaired. 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. Blue-green algae may be stimulated if the N:P ratio falls well below 10. N:P ratios of the baseline NNC criteria are in the range 25-50.

Comment IDs: 0658.001.002, 0716.001.004, 0743.001.009, 0837.001.003, 0956.001.001, 0964.001.004, 1353-1.001.020, 1359­ 1.001.019� Response: Thank you for your comments. Water quality criteria are not established on a basis of monetized benefits, or economic impacts. Rather, water quality standards are for the waters, to protect designated uses. The attainability of the standards, where it is an issue, is addressed through a use attainability analysis (UAAs). UAAs can address the potential for substantial and widespread economic and social impacts from water quality standards. See response to Comment ID 0543-1.001.002 for more discussion of economic effects.

Comment IDs: 0721.001.006, 0743.001.009, 0795.001.007, 0837.001.003, 0956.001.001, 0964.001.004 Response: Thank you for your comments. EPA notes that the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Water Quality Standards Regulation apply similarly to all states. Regarding concerns about foreign competition, again, many economic sectors depend on clean water. The economic impacts the comments cite do not consider the benefits of meeting water quality standards. See response to Comment ID 0543-1.001.002 for more discussion of economic effects.

Comment ID: 0778.001.004 Response: Thank you for your comment. Permit writers assign effluent limits to dischargers based on attaining WQS in the receiving water. Also, an antidegradation review would be required before discharges to pristine waters would be allowed.

Comment ID: 0964.001.004 Response: Thank you for your comment. Commenter provided no data to back up assertion of more than 50% impairment with implementation of NNC. CWA section 319 programs encourage and support the development of Forestry Best Management Practices (BMP) to control nonpoint sources of pollution, and EPA is aware of Florida's achievements in this area. However, since these BMPs were likely developed with consideration of the State's narrative nutrient criteria, they might not be expected to achieve the necessary reductions of nutrients associated with these anthropogenic activities to meet numeric nutrient criteria which have been scientifically developed to protect the designated use of affected waterbodies. The CWA anticipates that new or revised water quality standards will require review, reconsideration and potential revision of previously existing components of water quality

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3633Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

management

Comment IDs: 0964.001.004, 1353-1.001.020, 1359-1.001.019, 1474-1.001.024 Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA expects that upstream waters must meet Florida WQS at the state line. In accordance with 40 CFR section 131.10(b), states must ensure that their water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream states. States upstream of Florida are also subject to permitting regulations that require imposition of permit conditions that ensure compliance with downstream standards. See 40 C.F.R. section 122.4(d).

Comment IDs: 0803.001.002, 1473-1.001.017, 1474-1.001.031, 2233.001.016 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. Calculation of DPVs creates the nutrient budgets before the lake is impaired (pursuant to what the regulations tell states to do) so as to prevent impairment and a TMDL. The advantage of doing the calculations on the front end to determine applicable criteria (IPVs or DPVs) has been expressed as EPA policy per the Grumbles memo (2007): •� easier and faster development of TMDLs; •� quantitative targets to support trading programs; •� easier to write protective NPDES permits; •� increased effectiveness in evaluating success of nutrient runoff minimization programs; •� measurable, objective water quality baselines against which to measure environmental progress. Translating the narrative during the WQ criteria development process can save time, effort, resources later when a permit writer does it (which often times they don't because there is no numeric criterion in the first place), or later when, unfortunately, the water is found to be impaired and in need of a TMDL.

Comment IDs: 0803.001.002, 1347.001.002, 1443-1.001.007, 1474-1.001.142, 1559.001.004, 1834-4.001.026, 0509-1.001.004, 1230.001.006, 1474-1.001.138, 1834-4.001.026� Response: The January 2010 proposed use of the Vollenweider model equation to ensure the protection of downstream lakes requires input of two lake-specific characteristics: the fraction of inflow due to streamflow and the hydraulic retention time. Because lake-specific input values may not always be readily available, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from streamflow and hydraulic retention time that could be used in those instances. EPA’s January 2010 proposed rule

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3634Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams discussed the flexibility for the State to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for these two parameters, as long as the State determines that such inputs are appropriate and documents the site-specific values. Some commenters felt that that the Vollenweider equation was overly simplistic and that it does not include the necessary factors to account for physical, hydrologic, chemical, and biological processes necessary to determine protective criteria. Several commenters also suggested the need for TN values to protect downstream lakes that are nitrogen-limited (such as many of the lakes in the phosphorus-rich areas of the State). Comments included a recommendation to use models that can better represent site-specific conditions, such as BATHTUB, which EPA is finalizing in this rule. EPA’s August 2010 supplemental notice requested comment on using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes (downstream protection values or DPVs), allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available. EPA has decided not to use the Vollenweider equation for deriving DPVs. EPA has finalized an approach that provides several options for setting DPVs at the pour point, where waters from inflowing streams enter a lake. Where sufficient data and information are available, DPVs can be established using BATHTUB, which can represent site-specific conditions relevant to a particular lake (such as streamflow and groundwater contributions to a lake, and differences in retention times). BATHTUB also provides a similar or greater degree of site-specificity than the Dillon-Rigler approach. The rule also specifically allows FDEP or EPA to determine that use of another scientifically defensible modeling approach will result in the protection of downstream lakes. Where sufficient data and information are not available to apply a modeling approach, the rule specifies other approaches based on whether the downstream lake is attaining the lake criteria or whether the downstream is either not assessed or is impaired. (see final rule and preamble).

Comment ID: 1834-4.001.026� Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA considered the question of uptake and loss of phosphorus in streams. Phosphorus is indeed taken up and released, but absent any demonstrated permanent P sinks in the watershed, such as lakes or canals, over the long term, upstream inputs are in equilibrium with downstream outputs.

Comment ID: 0698.001.005� Response: Thank you for your comment. This comment appears to refer to the SPARROW model, which may or may not be used to develop DPVs for estuaries. 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

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3635Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Comment ID: 1774-1.001.033� Response: Thank you for your comment. This comment appears to refer to the SPARROW model, which may or may not be used to develop DPVs for estuaries. 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 ID: 1774-1.001.036� Response: Thank you for your comment. The question of whether particular DPVs are achievable will depend upon the particular stream and downstream lake, as the values for streams vary with region and lake type. Calculation of DPVs to protect lakes has been revised to use the BATHTUB model, or other appropriate models, and a greater amount of site-specific information.

Comment ID: 1261-1.001.003� Response: Thank you for your comment. Periodic overland discharges are not the same as stream or lake nutrient criteria, which are calculated as annual geometric means. Overland discharges should be permitted through Florida’s stormwater permits, and the relationship between stormwater discharge and stream or lake criteria must be calculated by the permitting agency.

Comment ID: 1482-1.001.014 Response: Thank you for your comment. The function of DPVs is to protect downstream waters, preventing scenarios such as the one outlined. 

# III.C.6.Q.1 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 1 Comment ID 0519-1.001.004

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute The current consent decree schedule also does not give EPA time to seek peer review the new and precedential concept of downstream protective values (DPVs) or the novel use of the SPARROW model to develop those values for estuaries and the novel use of the Vollenweider model to develop those values for lakes. 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. DPVs are scientific and technical work products that establish a significant

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3636Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 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 SPARROW model and the Vollenweider model to establish downstream protective values is a significant departure from the situations they were originally designed to address. Thus, both the concept of downstream protection values and the use of these models to derive those values require peer review. 

# Comment ID 0541-1.001.004

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Federal Water Quality Coalition The current consent decree schedule also does not give EPA time to seek peer review the new and precedential concept of downstream protective values or the novel use of the SPARROW model to develop those values for estuaries and the novel use of the Vollenweider model to develop those values for lakes. 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 SPARROW model and the Vollenweider model to establish downstream protective values is a significant departure from the situations they were originally designed to address. Thus, both the concept of downstream protection values and the use of these models to derive those values require peer review. 

# Comment ID 0599-1.001.004

Author Name: Schwartz J. Organization: American Forest & Paper Association EPA should seek peer review the new and precedential concept of downstream protective values or the novel use of the SPARROW model to develop those values for estuaries and the novel use of the Vollenweider model to develop those values for lakes. 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 SPARROW model and the Vollenweider model to establish downstream protective values is a significant departure from the situations they were originally designed to address. Thus, both the concept of downstream protection values and the use of these models to derive those values require peer review.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3637Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0778.001.003

Author Name: Collins J. Organization: Mr. Keating talked about the -- I've spent 30 years in the simulation industry, simulation and modeling. You talked about you're the user community. EPA talked to the developer, USGS. What you need to do is have an IVMV, independent verification validation of the models. Questions were raised about SPARROW, some of the other models were based on Mississippi and Tennessee. You need to do verification and validation and verify that the model is accurate and gives you the results you expect. Validate that the assumptions were appropriate. And the important word there is "independent." You cannot -- we call it drinking the Kool Aid. If you have the user and the developer saying everything's fine, no, sir. You need an independent -- spend a hundred grand, spend two hundred grand. That's a lot money but it's nothing compared to ten billion. You need to do some independent verification validation. 

# Comment ID 0896-2.001.013

Author Name: * * Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners

• The downstream protection approach, combined with the requirement that MS4 discharges achieve end-of-the-pipecompliance with the proposed numeric nutrient criteria, could effectively preclude the development of more costeffective regional treatment facilities, and, at times, undermine County Restoration Projects or Initiatives. • Even though the criteria are expressed in terms of concentrations, they need to meet the mark in terms of loads. Downstream Protection Values may not be achievable in all circumstances. In some cases, it would be better left to the State's TMDL process. 

# Comment ID 1331-1.001.013

Author Name: Aldstadt S. Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works EPA's DPV approach oversimplifies the complex watershed dynamics for the processing of nutrients and their delivery to downstream waters and could apparently supersede more technically and scientifically defensible planning processes based on site-specific information and sound modeling. The DPV approach creates a conflict between CWA sections 303(c) (33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)) relating to water quality standards and 303(d) (33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)) relating to impaired waters. The existing total maximum daily load (TMDL) program of CWA section 303(d) already requires the attainment of downstream uses through the development and use of load and wasteload allocations. The proposed rule would in effect establish a total maximum annual load on water bodies to ensure the protection of downstream uses,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3638Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams fusing the concepts of water quality standards and TMDLs. (See e.g., 75 Fed.Reg. at pp. 4197-4199.) These concepts serve different purposes under the CWA and should remain distinct. Any nutrient loading reductions necessary to protect downstream uses should be based on a complete loading analysis performed, and appropriate load and wasteload allocations made, during a TMDL process. 

# Comment ID 1356-1.001.016

Author Name: Hayes D. Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce 4. EPA suggests the need for the establishment of two separate criteria for flowing waters, Instream Protective Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protective Values (DPVs), in order to "provide for the attainment and maintenance ofthe water quality standards of downstream waters." EPA has stated that it will defer the establishment of DPVs for Florida's estuaries until the estuarine and coastal criteria are developed in 2011, therefore Manatee County will refrain from commenting specifically on estuarine DPVs until then. However, we do have concerns with the process of establishing DPVs for lakes and/or estuaries because of EPA' s assumption that the downstream water body is at or exceeding its assimilative capacity for nutrients. This assumption arbitrarily establishes a DPV for the river or stream lower than the IPV. The current FDEP process involves the evaluation of the downstream water body's compliance with its designated use. In this case, if the downstream lake or estuary meets its designated use, it can be concluded that the loads from the streams and rivers are protective of the downstream receiving water body. This process should be considered by EPA, and if appropriate IPVs are established for streams and rivers, there would be no need for the development of DPVs. 

# Comment ID 1359-1.001.008

Author Name: Andes F. Organization: Barnes & Thornburg LLP on behalf of Federal Water Quality Coalition 2. EPA's proposed criteria create a conflict between water quality standards and TMDLs. EPA's proposed nutrient standards for Florida also embrace a new interpretation of EPA's water quality standards regulations in the development of downstream protection values (DPVs). EPA's new interpretation of its water quality standards regulations creates a conflict between section 303(c) of the CWA and section 303(d) of the Act. EPA water quality regulations state that designated uses and the criteria to protect those uses must take downstream waters into consideration to provide for attainment and maintenance of downstream waters. 40 C.F.R. 131.10. However, EPA has consistently taken the position that: "adoption of criteria that represent ‘minimally impacted' conditions and that are sufficiently protective of near field downstream effects should ultimately achieve a far field benefit." See Memorandum from Geoffrey Grubbs to States on the Development and Adoption of Nutrient Criteria into Water Quality Standards (2001), at 17 (hereinafter Grubbs 2001). If it proves to be the case that further reductions are needed to protect downstream waters, those reductions should be based on an allocation of nutrient loadings. "If the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3639Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams cumulative impact of multiple "minimally impacted" conditions in the watershed results in adverse effects on far field estuary conditions, then further nutrient load reduction may be necessary, and would likely be phased in over a period of time based on specific load reduction targets for the ultimate receiving water body." Id. (emphasis added). By changing its interpretation of 40 C.F.R. 131.10, EPA is now creating a conflict between section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act, and section 303(d). Water quality criteria under section 303(c) are set at levels necessary to support designated uses. Section 303(d) requires the development of total maximum daily loads for waters that still do not meet water quality standards after technology based effluent limitations have been met. Standards set under section 303(c) are not load allocations. However, as recognized by current EPA guidance in Grubbs 2001, that is what downstream protection values would necessarily be. Load and waste load allocations that implement TMDLs cannot be set at a state-wide level without adequate data to support such a broad scope. Under EPA's TMDL regulations: "TMDLs shall be established at levels necessary to attain the applicable narrative and numerical WQS" in the particular water quality limited segment. 40 C.F.R. 130.7(c)(1). "Determinations of TMDLs shall take into account critical conditions for stream flow, loading, and water quality parameters" and "[s]ite-specific information should be used wherever possible." Id. However, EPA is proposing statewide downstream protection values that would, in effect, be load allocations. Thus, EPA is not only proposing water quality standards that do not meet the requirements of it water quality standards regulations, it also is proposing loading allocations that do not meet the requirements of its TMDL regulations. 

# Comment ID 1414-1.001.009

Author Name: Poltak R. Organization: New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission 6) States should not be required to use nutrient criteria as a tool to protect uses ofdownstream waters for which the nutrient criteria to do not directly apply The Northeast states agree that downstream waters and their uses must be protected, but the approach in the Proposed Rule is flawed. Downstream protective values should not be needed to maintain downstream water quality because antidegradation requirements already require protection of downstream water quality. Generalized and regional equations of downstream responses will not result in accurate upstream criteria, and analyzing the impacts of upstream nutrient concentrations on any and all potentially more nutrient-sensitive downstream waters would be impractical on a statewide level. A TMDL analysis and load allocation is the more practical and logical way to manage a downstream nutrient impairment. If the TMDL analysis results in a more stringent upstream loading or in-stream nutrient concentration limit than the established nutrient criterion value, the more stringent limit would apply. 

# Comment ID 1415-1.001.003

Author Name: Diffenderfer M. Organization: Lewis Longman & Walker, P.A. on behalf of Seminole Tribe of Florida

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3640Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Second, while EPA has decided to refrain from implementing interim downstream protection values, the EPA is currently developing downstream protection criteria in connection with the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for coastal waters, which is scheduled to be completed in 2011. The Seminole Tribe is concerned that the development and application of downstream protection values, which are intended to protect downstream lakes, estuarine and coastal waters, may also preordain methodologies that will limit the Seminole Tribe's flexibility in developing standards for its upstream tribal lands. Based on the information provided by EPA, EPA is utilizing watershed modeling to develop protective criteria for estuaries and downstream lakes. The watershed modeling will probably include upstream waters within the sovereign boundaries of the Seminole Tribe. The Seminole Tribe is concerned that, under this approach, EPA will dictate the loading values of upstream tribal waters and thus dictate tribal water quality standards. Such a result would be inconsistent with EPA policies regarding government to government relations with Indian Tribes and would be inconsistent with the EPA's trust responsibilities as set forth in the previously discussed Executive Orders. As a sovereign nation, the Seminole Tribe's lands should be given the same level of protection as downstream lakes and estuaries. Therefore, once the Seminole Tribe ha set protective criteria for its lands the EPA should conduct watershed modeling for the contributing watershed in order to develop downstream protection values for the State that are protective of the Seminole Tribe's water resources. Finally, pursuant to the Water Rights Compact of 1987, which was adopted as both federal and state law, and subsequent agreements, the Seminole Tribe is entitled to a certain quantity of water from the State of Florida. The Seminole Tribe is concerned that if the State of Florida (SFWMD) is not able to comply with EPA's proposed downstream water quality standards that water deliveries to the Seminole Tribe lands will be affected. It is critical to the protection of the Seminole Tribe's natural resources and the Seminole Tribe's well being that its water entitlement not be adversely impacted by the proposed rule. Specifically, the Seminole Tribe cannot be put in a position whereby the State is forced to preclude water deliveries to the Seminole Tribe in order to avoid water quality violations. On the other hand the Seminole Tribe does not want to be put into a position where it has to take responsibility for cleanup of water coming on to its lands from the State before discharging off the Tribe's lands. We need to be careful to ensure that the Seminole Tribe's water entitlements are not put in jeopardy while ensuring the integrity of the State's and the Seminole Tribe's water quality. 

# Comment ID 1415-1.001.005

Author Name: Diffenderfer M. Organization: Lewis Longman & Walker, P.A. on behalf of Seminole Tribe of Florida EPA's downstream modeling will establish de facto water quality standards for Seminole Tribe surface waters by virtue of their inclusion in the modeling as upstream water. 

# Comment ID 1433-1.001.011

Author Name: McIndoe J. Organization: Alabama Department of Environmental Management

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3641Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Comments on EPA's Proposed Downstream Protection Values Of the many provisions included in EPA's proposed numeric criteria for Florida's inland waters, the most confusing and unnecessary are the proposed downstream protection values (DPVs) proposed for flowing rivers and streams for the protection of downstream uses in lakes and estuaries. ADEM believes that this unprecedented provision is completely unnecessary since EPA is also proposing numeric nutrient criteria for these downstream waters which must be protective of their designated uses. This is especially true in the case of lakes. As EPA notes in the proposal, 40 CFR Part 131.10(b) states "In designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the State shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and shall ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters." This requirement does not mean that a separate criterion must be promulgated for the protection of downstream uses but rather that the criteria for protection of uses in upstream waters must also allow for maintenance of uses in the downstream waters. For EPA to propose numeric nutrient criteria for waters flowing into lakes which are not protective of those lakes, would be contrary to this requirement. Furthermore, EPA's proposed criteria for lakes are intended to ensure that the designated uses of those lakes are protected. The DPVs proposed for streams flowing into lakes are redundant and not needed to protect designated uses within the lakes. 4 In addition, the assumptions used in deriving the DPVs are not valid given the scientific basis for derivation of the instream protection criteria for TP and TN. By selecting the 75th percentile concentrations for TP and TN measured at biologically healthy stream sites the approach is effectively imposing an additional reduction in TP and TN concentration to levels that are below those found in some of Florida's least disturbed streams. Suggesting that naturally occurring TP and TN concentrations in flowing streams are not protective of downstream uses is not logical. 

# Comment ID 1473-1.001.018

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute By changing its interpretation of 40 C.F.R. 131.10, EPA is now creating a conflict between section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act, and section 303(d). Water quality criteria under section 303(c) are set at levels necessary to support designated uses. The regulations implementing that regulation are discussed above. Section 303(d) requires the development of total maximum daily loads for waters that still do not meet water quality standards after technology based effluent limitations have been met. Standards set under section 303(c) are not load allocations. However, as recognized by current EPA guidance in Grubbs 2001, that is what downstream protection values would necessarily be. Load and waste load allocations that implement TMDLs cannot be set at the state-wide level. Under EPA's TMDL regulations: "TMDLs shall be established at levels necessary to attain the applicable narrative and numerical WQS" in the particular water quality limited segment. 40 C.F.R. 130.7(c)(1). "Determinations of TMDLs shall take into account critical conditions for stream flow, loading, and water quality parameters" and "[s]ite-specific information should be used wherever possible." Id. However, EPA is proposing statewide downstream protection values that would, in effect, be load allocations. Thus, EPA is not only proposing water quality standards that do not meet the requirements of its water quality standards regulations, it also is proposing loading allocations that do not meet the requirements of its TMDL regulations.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3642Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1473-1.001.023

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 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 SPARROW model to develop downstream protection values for estuaries and the use of the Vollenweider model to develop those values for lakes are novel uses of these models. 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 SPARROW model and the Vollenweider model to establish downstream protective values is a significant departure from the situations they were originally designed to address. Thus, both the concept of downstream protection values and the use of these models to derive those values require peer review. EPA, Peer Review Handbook 3rd Edition (EPA/100/B-06/0020), at 29-32; see also National Guidelines, at 55 (requiring review of proposed criteria). 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 1474-1.001.032

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute By changing its interpretation of 40 C.F.R. 131.10, EPA is now creating a conflict between section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act, and section 303(d). Water quality criteria under section 303(c) are set at levels necessary to support designated uses for specific waters. The regulations implementing that regulation are discussed above. Section 303(d) requires the development of total maximum daily loads for waters that still do not meet water quality standards after technology based effluent limitations have been met. Standards set under section 303(c) are not load allocations. However, as recognized by current EPA guidance in Grubbs 2001, that is what downstream protection values would necessarily be. Load and waste load allocations that implement TMDLs cannot be set at the state-wide level. Under EPA's TMDL regulations: "TMDLs shall be established at levels necessary to attain the applicable narrative and numerical WQS" in the particular water quality limited segment. 40 C.F.R. 130.7(c)(1). "Determinations of TMDLs shall take into account critical conditions for stream flow, loading, and water quality parameters" and "[s]ite-specific information should be used wherever possible." Id. However, EPA is proposing statewide downstream protection values that would, in effect, be

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3643Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams load allocations. Thus, EPA is not only proposing water quality standards that do not meet the requirements of its water quality standards regulations, it also is proposing loading allocations that do not meet the requirements of its TMDL regulations. Not only would EPA's downstream protection values be contrary to EPA's own guidance and regulations, they would upset and supersede a successful state program. The State of Florida's water quality protection program employs a watershed approach and focuses on TMDLs and basin management plans to successfully implement water quality standards. However, by changing its interpretation of 40 C.F.R. 131.10, EPA is superseding the ability of the State of Florida to determine how to meet water quality standards within the State through the total maximum daily load process.

The Watershed Restoration Act of 1999 (Fla. Stat. §403.067) directs the FDEP to scientifically evaluate the quality of Florida's surface waters and promote the mechanisms necessary to clean up pollution. The Act was created specifically to implement the TMDL program. To streamline the TMDL program, FDEP adopted a five-year cycle that divides Florida into five groups of surface water basins in which different activities take place each year. Activities include preliminary basin assessments; identification of pollutant-impaired waters; targeted water quality monitoring and data analysis; TMDL development and adoption; basin planning with local stakeholders to establish the actions necessary to reduce pollution; and implementation through regulatory actions, funding, pollution prevention strategies, and other measures. Implementing the State's overall water quality management plans, Florida has currently adopted 135 nutrient TMDLs with an additional 39 pending adoption. These TMDLs have proved to be successful in improving water quality. For example, in the approved TMDL for the Tampa Bay watershed, Florida has demonstrated that the allowable loads of nutrients are protective of the estuarine waters of Tampa Bay and the current loads delivered to the bay are allowing achievement of designated use in the estuary. Establishing downstream protection values that would supersede these and other TMDLs in Florida does not advance the goal of the Clean Water Act. By disrupting a successful program, EPA is hindering the protection of designated uses, making the proposed federal standards not only unnecessary, but harmful. In fact, as the State of Florida has pointed out, in five out of six lakes the State reviewed, applying EPA's DPVs would permit greater loads of phosphorus than would the TMDL. In contrast, under its proposal for developing numeric nutrient standards, Florida had planned to treat previously adopted nutrient Total Maximum Daily Loads (adopted in FAC, Chapter 62- 304) as site specific alternative criteria. This approach retains the benefit of the site-specific solutions developed under the TMDLs. The technical deficiencies of DPVs are discussed above. EPA should not propose DPVs until these legal and technical issues are resolved and EPA demonstrates that it proposed DPVs are scientifically defensible. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.034

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3644Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute D. 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 SPARROW model to develop downstream protection values for estuaries and the use of the Vollenweider model to develop those values for lakes are novel uses of these models. 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 SPARROW model and the Vollenweider model to establish downstream protective values is a significant departure from the situations they were originally designed to address. Thus, both the concept of downstream protection values and the use of these models to derive those values require peer review. EPA, Peer Review Handbook 3rd Edition (EPA/100/B-06/0020), at 29-32; see also National Guidelines, at 55 (requiring review of proposed criteria). 

# Comment ID 1474-2.001.001

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute On March 1, 2010, a FOIA (See attached, FOIA request) was sent to EPA Headquarters on behalf of TFI requesting the Agency to provide documentation, justification, supporting rationale/bases for a number of positions taken and assertions made in proposing the proposed water quality standards currently at issue. After requesting an extension, EPA headquarters responded to this request on April 19, 2010. (See attached, written response). The following comments pertain to several of EPA's answers in this FOIA response. Comment on FOIA Item #1 The request asked: "On page 29 and 89 of the proposed standards, EPA claims that 40 CFR § 131.10(b) serves as the basis for mandating that proposed numeric standards must ensure ‘downstream protection.' Please provide all EPA guidance and published documents which (1) have informed the public that 40 CFR § 131.10(b) requires a state to confirm that a proposed upstream standard will ensure downstream protection and (2) explains how such ‘downstream protection' is to be demonstrated." Response: EPA identified numerous guidance documents in an effort to support the position the position that 40 C.F.R. 131.10(b) authorizes EPA to impose more restrictive water quality standards due to concerns over compliance with downstream standards. These documents include Technical Guidance Manuals, Ecoregional Criteria Documents, the Water Quality Standards Handbook, the National Strategy document for regional criteria, and a Frequent Questions document on Nutrient Criteria Implementation.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3645Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Comment: Not one of the documents identified by EPA stand for this principle stated. First, several of these documents predate this new regulatory interpretation by over two decades. If the documents really authorized this approach, EPA would not have waited twenty years to begin regulating in such a manner. Second, the documents identified do not provide any information on how EPA and/or States should calculate the downstream protection values. Assuming such an approach was lawful, some guidance explaining the required methodology could be expected. Third, these guidance documents expressly say the TMDL program should not be used as a basis for deriving water quality standards. Therefore, based upon a review of the information cited by EPA, the statements made by EPA are not supported in the record. To the extent EPA still believes that these documents authorize and explain such approach, please identify the particular portions of the identified documents which do so. 

# Comment ID 1474-2.001.002

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Comment on FOIA Item #4 The request asked: "On page 11 and 12 of the proposed standards, EPA describes how the SPARROW model was used to estimate TN losses/loads in the watershed and the Vollenweider model was used to predict lake impacts from upstream sources. Both of these models were used to calculate acceptable upstream nutrient standards. Please provide all records which discuss when and where these modeling approaches were subject to federal peer review and found to be scientifically defensible for calculating acceptable nutrient WQS. Moreover, please provide records of any prior instances in which these modeling approaches were found acceptable by EPA for statewide nutrient criteria derivation." Response: EPA identified numerous documents that it claimed were responsive to this request. These documents include Technical Guidance Manuals, Ecoregional Criteria Documents, EPA's proposed approach for developing numeric standards for Florida's inland waters, the Peer Review of this proposal, the Peer Review's response to questions, and several copyrighted studies from the 1970's and early 1980's. Comment: None of these documents show that SPARROW or Vollenweider models used by EPA have been peer reviewed for the purposes of deriving statewide water quality standards for the entire state of Florida. To the extent these models have ever been peer reviewed or generally accepted by the scientific community, it was for the limited purpose of the models' ability to calculate "protective loads" in lakes and estuaries to achieve specific chlorophyll ‘a' levels, not to derive water quality criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus independent of such effects. For EPA to rely on these models as a means of formulating water quality standards for an entire State has never been peer reviewed. Even the external peer review identified by EPA cast serious doubts on the model's ability to derive water quality standards. Federal guidance and law mandate that public notice and peer review precede any use of new methods to impose regulatory requirements on a statewide basis. As these approaches lack an acceptable peer review for general use as applied by EPA, EPA's reliance on these new methods is arbitrary and capricious and not otherwise scientifically

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3646Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

defensible. To the extent EPA still believes that these documents authorize and explain such approach, please identify the particular portions of the identified documents which do so. 

# Comment ID 1474-2.001.005

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Comment on FOIA Item #7 The request asked: "In determining its downstream protection values (DPVs) for lakes/estuaries on page 94 and 102 of the proposal, the EPA approach relied on multiple assumptions with respect to key parameters affecting derivation of the DPVs (e.g., current loads are excessive, stream is at the applicable WQS, rainfall frequency and volume, retention time, surface runoff, low water input, low atmospheric sources, stream flow figures). Please provide all prior public notices that explain it is acceptable to derive water quality criteria based on such multiple assumptions. In addition, please provide the copies of the federal peer review that found criteria derivation based upon multiple assumptions is (1) a scientifically defensible approach to criteria derivation and/or (2) consistent with USEPA's 1985 Guidelines for numeric criteria derivation." Response: EPA identified its Technical Guidance Manuals, Ecoregional Criteria Documents, and the National Strategy document for regional criteria as peer-reviewed documents that support the DPV approach. Comment: None of the identified documents indicate that the approaches employed to derive nutrient standards in Florida have been peer-reviewed. Moreover, and as discussed above, none of these documents encourage deriving criteria based on a downstream protection values, let alone the multiple assumptions EPA relied on in undertaking the DPV approach. In fact, EPA advises regulators to conduct further investigation on lakes and rivers that do not meet TN or TP levels but are not otherwise impaired (e.g., chl-a, secchi disk). Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and Reservoirs, EPA-822-B-00-00I at 16. Moreover, the Guidelines expressly states that water quality criteria should not be based on speculative assumptions. As EPA's new approach to criteria derivation was never peer reviewed as required by federal law and policy, criteria that were based on these speculative approaches should be withdrawn. To the extent EPA still believes that these documents authorize and explain such approach, please identify the particular portions of the identified documents which do so. 

# Comment ID 1474-2.001.008

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3647Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Comment on FOIA Items in which EPA Did Not Identify Any Responsive Documents EPA did not have any of the following:

• WQS development guidance which specifies that a WQS, intended for statewide application, may be based upon generic TMDL load calculations for classes of waters (e.g., lakes and estuaries). (Item #2)

• EPA peer reviews (not related to this specific rule action) finding that such a methodology [TMDL load calculations] for WQS derivation is scientifically defensible. (Item #2)

• Federal peer review determinations which found that application of such methodologies [setting stream criteria to protect downstream estuaries] are appropriate in setting WQSs intended for statewide application, including protection of downstream waters. (Item #3) Given these concessions, and putting the legal propriety aside, TFI believes that EPA's new DPV approach must be properly vetted in an open and thorough peer review before the approach can be used to generate numeric standards for entire classes of waters throughout a state. These responses show this has not occurred and that the use of the proposed approach is not consistent with accepted methodologies for criteria derivation.



# Comment ID 1476-2.001.074

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District G. Promulgating Numeric Criteria for Streams in Advance of Setting Criteria for Downstream Waterbodies Such As Estuaries May Cause Confusion With the TMDL Process Nutrients effects occur over long time frames and are most severe in downstream waterbodies (e.g., lakes and estuaries) that accumulate nutrients over time in sediments and in the water column. Establishing numeric criteria for streams in advance of estuaries may require revising the criteria for streams after the criteria for estuaries have been adopted. It seems most effective to adopt numeric criteria for downstream waterbodies first because (1) nutrient effects are cumulative over time, and (2) focuses management attention on the most severe nutrient problems in Florida, (3) the knowledge base for nutrient problems is the most well understood for downstream waterbodies (e.g., lakes and estuaries) compared to flowing water systems such as streams and canals. In addition, criteria designed to protect downstream waters may cause confusion between water quality standards and the TMDL process. Water quality standards for a particular waterbody are designed to protect the designated uses of that waterbody. Setting criteria to protect downstream uses will likely be based on tools and modeling currently used to set TMDLs, and may blur the distinctions between these regulatory tools. This creates difficulties for both unimpaired and impaired streams (and canals). Unimpaired streams discharging to a heavily impaired lake or estuary could have higher criteria, and allow higher nutrient loadings, compared to streams discharging to higher quality downstream waterbody. Conversely, heavily impaired streams discharging to high quality lake or estuary could have lower criteria, and require lower nutrient loadings, compared to other streams discharging to a lower quality downstream waterbody.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3648Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

There is substantial agreement between FDEP and the District (see FDEP comment E), and FDEP Appendices A-C provide a process for setting numeric criteria on a watershed basis. 

# Comment ID 1477-1.001.025

Author Name: Rudd F. Organization: Florida Engineering Society

- EPA seems to be trying to change the acceptable level of data/information needed for criteria derivation to a "best available" information standard - regardless of the scientific sufficiency of that information. The National Guidelines expressly do not allow this approach. (See relevant Guidelines Excerpts below) Moreover, in developing water quality standards, the "National Guidelines," specify that standards must avoid both substantial over and under-regulation. In developing what EPA calls "downstream protection values", EPA has made a series of worst case assumptions that predict extremely low nutrient levels are mandated for virtually all streams. Criteria are not supposed to be based on a series of speculative, worst case assumptions. These worst case assumptions are not reasonable predictions and will waste resources on a broad scale. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.038

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority This is further discussed on page 4196; (6) Protection of Downstream Lakes and Estuaries Two key objectives of WQS are: first, to protect the immediate water body to which a criterion initially applies and, second, to ensure that criteria provide for protection of downstream WQS affected by flow of pollutants from the upstream water body. See 40 CFR 131.11 and 131.1O(b). To address, the downstream issue, EPA proposed additional steps that go beyond what is generally required to establish water quality criteria. EPA's own regulations require that the criteria proposed for "instream" purposes must be protective of downstream water bodies. EPA's initial proposal, which has, for now, been delayed, would set about rewriting the CWA and implementing regulations. If the instream criteria are protective and meet the EPA's owu regulations, then the Dowustream Protection Values, or DPVs, should be completely unnecessary. EPA must explain how this approach is consistent with EPA's regulations. Indeed, 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(b), requires: (b) In designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the State shall take into consideration the water quality standards of dowustream waters and shall ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance ofthe water quality standards of downstream waters. EPA's initial proposed approach - the designation ofDPVs - goes well beyond this. The simple delay of implementation

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3649Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams of such a policy to next year will not cure this defect. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.059

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Summary No scientific basis is presented to establish nutrient criteria for Florida canals. USEPA first needs to establish the goals for conditions and designated uses it seeks to protect and use these as the basis to establish nutrient criteria. A rational basis must also be established for classifying canals according to these goals and recognizing regional differences in water quality (color, pH alkalinity etc.), soils, geology and topography that influence water quality in and flow characteristics of canals. It needs to determine what response variables are appropriate to indicate that the applicable resources and designated uses are being protected and determine appropriate threshold values of the indicators related to impairment of these features. Finally, it needs to establish reliable relationships between those threshold indicator values and nutrient concentrations. The USEPA unfortunately has completed none of these steps. Consequently the proposed nutrient criteria are arbitrary and should not be implemented. Establishing a TMDL for a water body that receives input from a stream or canal, precludes the need to consider DPVs a basis for numeric nutrient criteria in these tributaries. Numeric water quality criteria for streams and canals should be based solely on protection of resources exist within the canal or stream itself and the TMDL or similar process should be applied to downstream water bodies, taking inputs from the entire watershed into consideration. 

# Comment ID 1725-1.001.006

Author Name: Nyhus S. Organization: Flaherty & Hood, P.A. on behalf of Minnesota Environmental Science and Economic Review Board IV. The Proposal Utilizes an Unprecedented and Unreviewed Methodology to Further Restrict Downstream Standards The proposal introduces a new approach for standards derivation called downstreanl protection values (DPVs). This approach, which parallels a TMDL, further restricts upstream nutrient concentrations because the Agency assumes that a less restrictive upstream WQS will automatically cause an impairment of downstream uses. The approach begins by calculating "protective loads" in downstream lakes and estuaries by using loading models (SPARROW and Vollenweider) and then using those loads to back-calculate acceptable instream concentrations. EPA is essentially setting TMDLs within the WQS adoption process, which greatly limits state flexibility in designing appropriate solutions for individual water bodies as intended by the TMDL program. No authority exists for EPA to release TMDL limits under the guise of water quality standards. Load limits are not set under CWA § 303(c) and are not used as a basis for developing acceptable instream concentrations when deriving criteria. The proposal claims that 40 C.F.R. 131.1 O(b) mandates such an approach be taken. However, that rule was adopted in 1983 and has never been used by EPA to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3650Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams justify such an approach in 27 years of historical application. Even if the DPV approach were authorized, it is not at all clear that the approach is scientificallydefensible. First, the agency has employed the approach using a series of worst case assumptions (e.g., assuming that all waters upstream oflakes are all at the allowable 75th percentile stream criteria level, assuming all estuaries in the state are impaired, and not considering any uptake throughout the transport process) in lieu of more detailed site-specific information and EPAapproved TMDL studies that were completed by the state to protect lakes and estuaries. Second, EPA has never subjected the SPARROW or Vollenweider models to peer review as a criteria derivation method. Third, this approach will require over 50% of pristine streams to reduce instream nutrient concentrations because of the DPV. Such an infeasible and illogical conclusion confirms the approach taken was significantly flawed. MESERB believes that the existence of a less restrictive upstream standard does not, in and of itself, prove that downstream standards are not being attained or that downstream uses are being impaired. If EPA is concerned that existing standards are insufficient to protect lakes and estuaries, the 303(d) TMDL program would be the appropriate recourse. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.027

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Downstream Protection Methodology Needs Formal Review For the first time, EPA is proposing an approach to modify instream water quality criteria for the protection of downstream uses. NACWA understands that EPA has tabled its decision on the downstream protective values relating to estuaries until next year, but given the potential implications for the nation, NACWA feels it is important to fully address the concept of developing downstream protective criteria values in these comments. NACWA believes that what has been proposed was not sufficiently evaluated and oversimplifies the complex watershed dynamics that determine how nutrients are actually processed and delivered to downstream waters. NACWA has identified significant issues with the assumptions EPA has made in its approach to estimating downstream protective values and believes that the entire approach should be put on hold until an in-depth analysis of the issue can be conducted. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.030

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies NACWA has concerns about the validity (representativeness) of the underlying assumptions used in both the lake and estuary downstream protection value methodologies. In the proposal, EPA is seeking feedback on the approach and by referencing the limitations of the SPARROW model, EPA acknowledges that other approaches and models may also

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3651Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams provide defensible estimates of protective loads. All of these considerations need to be reviewed before this downstream protection overlay is used in a regulatory or criteria-setting process. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.040

Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior If there is no theoretical or empirical basis for a state-wide criterion, then EPA should propose the 50% reduction inanthropogenic loading as an interim measure. We believe that the stated goal should be to have criteria based on loadresponse relationships in, or directly applicable to, each estuary. 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.029

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District b. In order to ensure appropriate levels of protection of downstream waters, the District recommends that stream nutrient criteria be based on the loading limits of downstream lentic and estuarine waters. In most cases, the requirements of the associated lentic waters will also protect in stream aquatic life because lotic waters are typically less responsive to nutrients than are lentic waters. There are several reasons for the lower sensitivity of lotic waters. First, retention times are short. As a consequence, planktonic communities cannot completely assimilate nutrients and do not develop to the densities found in lentic waters. Second, many streams are heavily shaded and deeply colored. These factors impose light limitation that further limits complete utilization of nutrients, even for benthic autotrophs. Third, areal nutrient loads experienced by sessile plants, algae, and bacteria in streams can be very high. Thus, nutrient limitation will typically be less significant in controlling rates of primary production than in lentic waters. Data presented to Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP) Numeric Nutrient Criteria Technical Advisory Committee demonstrated that some streams, most noteworthy those of the peninsular Bone Valley Formation, exhibit healthy invertebrate fauna at even very high nutrient (phosphorus, in this case) concentrations. For these reasons, the numeric nutrient limits for streams should be dictated by the nutrients concentration limits of upstream and downstream lentic waters or estuaries in most cases. This rationale was applied in the recently adopted TMDL for the Middle St. Johns River, which includes both river reaches and two large flow-through lakes (Gao, 2009). Loading models, such as those developed by Vollenweider (1975), can be used to set nutrient concentration limits for streams once downstream limits have been determined. By combining models for downstream protective values (DPVs) with continuous models for numeric criteria in lakes, site-specific stream criteria can be developed. In the cases where in-stream designated uses are not protected by DPVs, i.e. where excess nutrients create an imbalance in flora and fauna, more restrictive site-specific alternative criteria would be needed.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3652Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1900.001.007

Author Name: Gulbinsky E. Organization: Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey IV. The Proposal Utilizes an Unprecedented and Unreviewed Methodology to Further Restrict Downstream Standards The proposal introduces a new approach for standards derivation called downstream protection values ("DPVs"). This approach, which parallels a TIVIDL, further restricts upstream nutrient concentrations because the Agency assumes automatically that a less restrictive upstream WQS will cause downstream uses not to be achieved. The approach begins by calculating "protective loads" in downstream lakes and estuaries by using loading models (SPARROW and Vollenweider) and then using those loads to back calculate acceptable instream concentrations. Essentially, EPA is setting TMDLs within the WQS adoption process which greatly limits state flexibility in designing appropriate solutions for individual water bodies as intended by the TMDL program. No authority exists for EPA to release TMDL limits under the guise of water quality standards. Load limits are not set under CWA 303(c) and are not used as a basis for developing acceptable instream concentrations when deriving criteria. The proposal claims that 40 CFR 131.10(b) mandates such an approach be taken. However, that rule was adopted in 1983 and has never been used by EPA to justify such an approach in 27 years of historical application. 

# Comment ID 1900.001.008

Author Name: Gulbinsky E. Organization: Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey Even if the DPV approach were authorized, it is not at all clear that the approach is scientifically-defensible. First, the agency has employed the approach using a series of worst case assumptions (e.g., assuming that all waters upstream of lakes are all at the allowable 75th percentile stream criteria level, assuming all estuaries in the state are impaired, and not considering any uptake throughout the transport process) in lieu of more detailed site-specific information and EPA-approved TMDL studies that were completed by the state to protect lakes and estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1900.001.009

Author Name: Gulbinsky E. Organization: Association of Environmental Authorities of New Jersey Secondly, EPA has never subjected the SPARROW or Vollenweider models to peer review as a criteria derivation method. Thirdly, this approach will require over 50% of pristine streams to reduce instream nutrient concentrations because of the DPV. Such an infeasible and illogical conclusion confirms the approach taken was significantly flawed. AEA believes that the existence of a less restrictive upstream standard does not, in and of itself, prove that downstream standards are not being attained. If EPA is concerned that existing standards are insufficient to protect lakes and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3653Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams estuaries, the 303(d) TMDL program would be the appropriate recourse. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.022

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 2.1.4 Protection of Downstream Waters EPA interprets 40 C.ER. § 13l.lO(b) to require instream criteria to be protective of downstream waters.[19]" Under such an interpretation, the IPVs must be protective of downstream waters as proposed and standing alone. EPA's proposed rule contains several admissions that its proposed criteria are not protective of downstream waters [20] To accommodate the deficiencies, EPA had also proposed Downstream Protective Values (DPVs) that are used to ratchet down the IPVs for streams which ultimately discharge to estuaries and an application of the Vollenweider Model to purportedly protect downstream lakes. If indeed the IPVs were properly derived to be protective of downstream waters as required by EPA regulations, there would be no need for the DPVs of the Vollenweider calculations. In the alternative, if the DPVs and downstream lake values are necessary, the IPVs are not protective of downstream waters. However, making the IPVs more stringent will not cure the deficiencies in that the IPVs themselves are not scientifically defensible. [19] 40 C.ER. § 131.l0(b) states: In designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the State shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and shall ensure that its water quality standards provided for the attainment and maintenance of water quality standards of downstream waters. [20]. . .numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries when proposed and finalized in 2011, may result in the need for more stringent rivers and streams criteria to ensure protection of downstream waters . . . ." 75 Fed. Reg. 4197. ". . .the numeric criteria EPA is (sic) proposing to protect instream aquatic life may not be stringent enough to ensure protection of WQS for aquatic life in certain downstream lakes and estuaries." 75 Fed. Reg. 4215. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.058

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries The USEPA also has used untested new methods, without appropriate peer review, to derive Downstream Protective Values (DPVs ) for Florida's Lakes and Estuaries that are unnecessary and not based on sound science. The USEPA should accept Florida's current approach and use the existing TMDL and BMAP programs, which have worked well in many of Florida's estuaries, such as Tampa Bay and the Lower St. Johns River. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.081

Author Name: Kovach C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3654Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: CF Industries Downstream Protective values USEPA presented two methods to provide downstream protection of surface water bodies, one each for lakes and estuaries. The approach for lakes is derived on the Vollenweider (1976) model, and the one for estuaries uses an unpublished (and unvetted) method proposed by USEPA for the first time in this proposal. 

# Response

Comment ID: 2233-1.001.022 Response: Thank you for your comment.

Comment ID: 1715-3.001.059 Response: Canals will be considered in the 2011 rulemaking and are considered in this rule.

Comment IDs: 1415-1.001.003, 1415-1.001.005 Response: Thank you for your comments. Under 40 CFR section 131.10(b), water quality must provide for the attainment and maintenance of WQS of downstream waters, and EPA interprets this as applying to upstream states as well. Therefore EPA continues to expect that upstream waters must meet downstream WQS at state and tribal boundaries (see preamble).

Comment IDs: 0896-2.001.013, 1414-1.001.009, 1725-1.001.006, 1900.001.009, 2233-1.001.058, 1715-3.001.059, 1474-1.001.032, 1331-1.001.013, 1359-1.001.008, 1473-1.001.018, 1474-1.001.032, 1476-2.001.074, 1725-1.001.006, 1900.001.007, 1476­ 2.001.074 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. Calculation of DPVs creates the nutrient budgets before the lake is impaired (pursuant to what the regulations tell states to do) so as to prevent impairment and a TMDL. The advantage of doing the calculations on the front end to determine applicable criteria (IPVs or DPVs) has been expressed as EPA policy per the Grumbles memo (2007): •� easier and faster development of TMDLs; •� quantitative targets to support trading programs;

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3655Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

•� easier to write protective NPDES permits; •� increased effectiveness in evaluating success of nutrient runoff minimization programs; •� measurable, objective water quality baselines against which to measure environmental progress. Translating the narrative during the WQ criteria development process can save time, effort, resources later when a permit writer does it (which often times they don't because there is no numeric criterion in the first place), or later when, unfortunately, the water is found to be impaired and in need of a TMDL. This rulemaking also includes a streamlined SSAC process; nothing in the rule prevents the development and application of SSACs. In this rulemaking, EPA is promulgating a procedure whereby the State can submit a SSAC proposal, with supporting documentation, for EPA’s consideration. EPA elected to promulgate this approach because this procedure maintains the State in a primary role regarding transmittal and development of SSAC for State waters. The procedure that EPA is promulgating allows the State to submit a proposed federal SSAC directly to EPA for the Agency’s review and assessment as to whether an adjustment to the applicable federal numeric criteria is appropriate and warranted. The proposed SSACs may be developed for single waterbodies, for watersheds, for nutrient region subdivisions, or for lake class or region subdivisions, as appropriate and as supported by the data and analysis. For further details, see the final preamble for the rulemaking.� Comment ID: 1414-1.001.009 Response: Thank you for your comments. 40 CFR 131.10(b) requires that "In designating the uses of a waterbody and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the State shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and shall ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters. While it is true that antidegradation provisions are one of three components of water quality standards, in this final rule EPA has determined that it is necessary to adjust the applicable streams criteria with downstream protection values in order to provide assurance that the water quality standards of downstream waters are attained or maintained.

Comment IDs: 0896-2.001.013, 1356-1.001.016, 1433-1.001.011, 1530.001.038, 1725-1.001.006, 1900.001.009 Response: Thank you for your comments. EPA agrees that in most cases truly natural conditions should not be considered impaired, and that receiving waters in a completely undisturbed watershed would be adapted to the nutrient loads entering them. But EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. It may seem reasonable to assume that regional stream criteria, derived from benchmark sites, are protective of lake conditions. EPA does not believe that assumption has been demonstrated to be true. First, the criteria are derived from the 90th percentile of the benchmark stream distribution, so we know that almost 90% of benchmark streams have nutrient concentrations less than, not at, the criteria values. Some are well below. As an example, suppose a stream in the North Central stream nutrient region has a nutrient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3656Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams concentration at the 10th percentile of the regional benchmark distribution (e.g., 0.05 mg/L TP). Increasing the stream’s TP to the criterion limit (the 90th percentile; 0.35 mg/L TP in North Central) is a seven-fold increase. Without calculated DPVs, a downstream lake could thus be allowed to receive up to a seven-fold increase in TP loading, which would almost certainly have a deleterious effect on the lake. This effect can be magnified, since EPA’s criteria for lakes are, in some cases, more stringent than the final criteria for streams that flow into the lakes, and thus the instream criteria may not be stringent enough to ensure protection of WQS in certain downstream lakes. Even scientifically-derived boundaries of the stream nutrient regions are artificial: the boundaries are created for implementation of criteria and management, but we recognize that they divide continuous nature into fixed categories. We also recognize that the boundaries were developed based on real, imperfect information available at the time - new data may reveal the necessity for new categories, or shifting of boundaries. Streams meeting regional criteria may cause downstream impairment simply because it is not possible to devise a perfect classification based on real, imperfect data. Finally, there are other sources of nutrients (sheet flow runoff, groundwater, internal P loading) that are accounted for in a DPV development or a TMDL, but would negate the assumption that lakes receiving flow from streams meeting criteria automatically also meet their criteria. EPA agrees that, in some circumstances, site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) may be warranted to account for site-specific conditions. SSAC may be appropriate when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. EPA refers the commenter tothe preamble of the final rule which discusses the federal site-specific alternative criteria process, in particular section V.C sitespecific alternative criteria, which explains a specific procedure, finalized in federal rule, for EPA adoption of site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC). EPA provides clarification on the roles and responsibilities of the Agency and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in administering this procedure, clarification regarding FDEP’s current regulatory SSAC process and how this process differs from EPA’s federal SSAC procedure, and the Agency’s authority to enact this procedure. EPA also provides additional guidance for a federal SSAC submittal. EPA notes that FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own rulemaking process at any time to establish a State SSAC process for nutrients, or other regulatory relief mechanisms, and may submit such mechanisms to EPA for review under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. The statement that 50% of pristine streams would require nutrient reductions to meet lake DPVs was not supported with evidence or data.

Comment ID: 1433-1.001.011 Response: Thank you for your comment. In-lake criteria are not inherently protective if there are nutrient sources that are not subject to permit limits. As an example, consider a stream with ambient nutrient concentrations well below its criteria. New sources and new discharge permits would allow increased nutrients up to the stream criteria, and these increases could also affect a downstream lake. DPVs are needed because flowing waters are often less responsive to instream nutrient concentrations than lentic (still) waters. In fact this is the intent of DPVs, to explicitly protect downstream waters.

Comment IDs: 0519-1.001.004, 0541-1.001.004, 0599-1.001.004, 0778.001.003, 1356-1.001.016, 1477-1.001.025, 1473-1.001.023,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3657Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams
1474-1.001.032, 1474-1.001.034, 1474-2.001.008, 1725-1.001.006, 1786-1.001.027, 1786-1.001.030, 1900.001.008, 1900.001.009, 2233-1.001.058, 2233-1.001.081. Response: Thank you for your comments. EPA received numerous comments on the DPV calculation approach, including SPARROW and the Vollenweider models, including:

• �Has not been peer-reviewed;

• �Worst case scenarios;

• �Lack of instream nutrient uptake;

• �DPV targets are too stringent;

• �Assumes that receiving water is at or exceeding its assimilative capacity;

• �DPV targets may not be stringent enough;

• �Other methods may be more appropriate 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 The January 2010 proposed use of the Vollenweider model equation to ensure the protection of downstream lakes requires input of two lake-specific characteristics: the fraction of inflow due to streamflow and the hydraulic retention time. Because lake-specific input values may not always be readily available, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from streamflow and hydraulic retention time that could be used in those instances. EPA’s January 2010 proposed rule discussed the flexibility for the State to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for these two parameters, as long as the State determines that such inputs are appropriate and documents the site-specific values. Some commenters felt that that the Vollenweider equation was overly simplistic and that it does not include the necessary factors to account for physical, hydrologic, chemical, and biological processes necessary to determine protective criteria. Several commenters also suggested the need for TN values to protect downstream lakes that are nitrogen-limited (such as many of the lakes in the phosphorus-rich areas of the State). Comments included a recommendation to use models that can better represent site-specific conditions, such as BATHTUB, which EPA is finalizing in this rule. EPA’s August 2010 supplemental notice requested comment on using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes, allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available that would use the lake criteria themselves as criteria for upstream waters flowing into the lake. EPA has finalized an approach that provides several options for setting DPVs at the pour point, where waters from inflowing streams enter a lake. These options include using BATHTUB, which can represent site-specific conditions relevant to a particular lake, or some other defensible model, and when data are not sufficient to apply BATHTUB, the rule specifies other approaches based on using ambient conditions as criteria or applying the lake nutrient criteria at the pour point (see final rule and preamble).

Comment ID: 1801-1.001.029

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3658Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Response: Thank you for your comments. EPA agrees that, in general, lakes are more sensitive to nutrient enrichment than flowing waters. However, designated uses are inherent to the flowing water itself and therefore criteria need to be specified to protect those uses.

Comment ID: 0896-2.001.013 Response: Thank you for your comments. The commenter did not offer any evidence for this assertion

Comment IDs: 1474-2.001.001, 1474-2.001.002, 1474-2.001.005, 1474-2.001.008 Response: Thank you for your comments. These are not comments on the proposed rule.

Comment ID: 1794-1.001.040 Response: Thank you for your comments. 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. 

# III.C.6.A - DOWNSTREAM PROTECTION OF LAKES Comment ID 0890.001.002

Author Name: Berman W. Organization: Davie Dairy, Inc. 2) To set one standard for all the water entering Lake Okeechobee is simply bad, science. We have found that the water in Nubbin Slough (at our farm) varies drastically in nutrient content, pH, and buffering requirements, from season to season. It also varies drastically from Mosquito Creek (another nearby stream) which is only a few miles away: The idea that all the water sources flowing into Lake Okeechobee should be treated the same is just not consistent with the facts on the ground. 3) Even if we could perfect our system tomorrow, there would be enormous quantities of water that would leave our farm with nutrient levels that are much in excess of your standards. During extreme rainfall events that occur each rainy season and even more so during a hurricane or tropical storm, it is physically impossible to capture and treat all storm water that enters the system.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3659Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0922-1.001.028

Author Name: Fred Lee G. Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates An ancillary finding that evolved from Vollenweider's work in the OECD eutrophication studies was the relationship between the phosphorus load to a lake or reservoir and the phosphorus concentration in the waterbody. Vollenweider found that in theory and in the OECD data, the phosphorus load to a waterbody, properly normalized by the waterbody's area, mean depth, and hydraulic residence time (filling time), is approximately equal to the average phosphorus concentration in the waterbody. Chapra (1997), in his book, "Surface Water Quality Modeling," confirmed that relationship. However, as we have discussed elsewhere, P concentration in a waterbody, especially instantaneous concentration, is not a reliable eutrophication-related water quality indicator. A key issue that needs to be addressed in considering nutrient criteria is how to relate phosphorus and nitrogen in-waterbody concentrations to a waterbody to their impact on the waterbodies beneficial uses. Phosphorus, in itself, is not a water quality concern; it is only of concern to the extent that it is used by algae and aquatic plants in the production of nuisance or other adverse impacts of excessive amounts of biomass. Vollenweider's work in the OECD eutrophication studies revealed that the relating factors between P load and eutrophication-related water quality response were the site-specific morphologic and hydrologic characteristics of the waterbody in question, namely the waterbody's area, mean depth, and hydraulic residence time; that finding has been corroborated in substantial amounts of follow-on work. Thus in order to implement the proposed criteria into source discharge limitations for various dischargers, it is necessary to consider the target waterbody's area, mean depth, and hydraulic residence time to relate the phosphorus load to the waterbody to its eutrophication-related water quality characteristics. 

# Comment ID 0922-1.001.038

Author Name: Fred Lee G. Organization: G. Fred Lee & Associates The Vollenweider-OECD normalized P load-response models generally consider a waterbody's annual loading of P. However, depending on the characteristics of a particular waterbody, it may be more appropriate to focus on the load of algal-available phosphorus that occurs just before the peak algal biomass that leads to impaired water quality. For those waterbodies, the phosphorus load that occurs at other times of the year may have little impact on the water quality that is of concern to the public and users of the waterbody. This is especially important in short-residence-time waterbodies. The Rast et al. (1983) review referenced above discussed the available data describing P loading and response characteristics of waterbodies before and after substantial reductions had been made in the P loads. They normalized the P loads based on the Vollenweider-OECD model and compared them with the associated planktonic algal chlorophyll concentrations as prescribed by the model. They found that using the Vollenweider-OECD model and the preload-change normalized P load-response coupling for a waterbody, the change in chlorophyll that resulted from the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3660Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams P load reduction could be predicted. They found that that relationship held even when the phosphorus concentrations in the waterbodies were well-above growth-ratelimiting concentrations as based on Redfield N to P "limiting" ratios. Original comment letter contains additional information for rivers/streams in the Response of chlorophyll to reduced phosphorus concentration in the Delta and the Rhine River developed by Dr. Erwin van Nieuwenhuyse. See original comment letter. Relationship developed by Dr. Erwin van Nieuwenhuyse as presented at the Delta Nutrient Workshop as "Response of chlorophyll to reduced phosphorus concentration in the Delta and the Rhine River" at, http://www.cwemf.org/workshops/DeltaNutrientsWrkshp/VanNieuwenhuyse.pdf . Lee in his synopsis of the CWEMF Delta Nutrient Workshop at, http://www.cwemf.org/workshops/DeltaNutrientsWrkshp/Nutrientworkshop_files/CWEMF_W S_synopsis.pdf provides additional discussion of this issue, and in, Lee, G. F., and Jones-Lee, A., "Application of Vollenweider OECD Modeling: Limiting Nutrient Issues," Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, February (2009). http://www.gfredlee.com/Nutrients/LimitingNutrientIssues.pdf 

# Comment ID 1009.001.009

Author Name: * * Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners Item III.C(6)(a) - Downstream Protection of Lakes: EPA proposes to use a lake phosphorus methodology by Vollenweider (1975 & 1976) which assumes that rainfall exceeds evaporation (reasonable for Florida) and that external phosphorus loading comes from streams (not valid in Florida due to groundwater and sediment influxes) . Indeed, page 95 states "in Florida lakes, rainfall and groundwater sources tend to contribute a large portion of the volume of lake water. In fact, only about 20% of the more than 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them." The applicability of the Vollenweider method across the State is questionable because of these assumptions. It was for this reason that Florida has used Florida-specific lake models for Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation (WQBEL) studies since the 1970s. Also, as mentioned above, the absence of the EPA recommended limiting nutrient concept is noteworthy and limits the validity of this approach. 

# Comment ID 1009.001.010

Author Name: * * Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners Item III.C(6)(a) - Downstream Protection of Lakes : EPA proposes that for the Vollenweider method, in the absence of site-specific data, the fraction of inflow related to all stream flow should be 50% (i.e ., 50% of the lake's influx of water comes from streams) and the residence time is about 2% months (i.e., tW = 0.2). EPA acknowledges (see above) that only 20% of Florida lakes have streams flowing into them; if so, how is it representative to use 50% of the influx is

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3661Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams stream flow? Also, if 80% of Florida lakes have no stream influx, this implies that the residence time is very long, not very short. Documentation of these choices was not found in the Technical Reference Documents. Also, EPA did not propose a method for nitrogen control in lakes even though research in recent TMDLs for nutrient impairment in Florida Lakes show that many lakes are nitrogen limited and control of phosphorus does not control algal growth in these lakes. 

# Comment ID 1128.001.010

Author Name: Blancher II E. Organization: Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration LLC on behalf of CF Industries Another example where U.S. E.P.A. applied -- where U.S. E.P.A. has applied overly simplistic superficial analyses and applied unexpressive and outdated science is in trying to develop downstream protection values for lakes based on Vollenweider's input/output models. Input/output models do not generally work in many of Florida's lacustrine systems. We are preparing comments which identify those weaknesses in that approach, and are also preparing suggestions on alternative approaches. 

# Comment ID 1135.001.006

Author Name: Naja M. Organization: Everglades Foundation However, we do raise some concerns with regard to using the Vollenveider model and its assumptions to establish criteria for protecting downstream lakes, especially as applied to Lake Okeechobee and its tributaries. We do not think that the phosphorus geometric mean of 113 or 107 ppb in the tributaries of the Lake Okeechobee is low enough to enable reaching the TMDL for the lake by January 1, 2015. The uncertainties and assumptions of the Vollenveider model should be clarified in the EPA's document to help make the results less ambiguous and more applicable. 

# Comment ID 1261-1.001.012

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Item III.C(6)(a) - Downstream Protection of Lakes: EPA proposes to use a lake phosphorus methodology by Vollenweider (1975 & 1976) which assumes that rainfall exceeds evaporation (reasonable for Florida) and that external phosphorus loading comes from streams (not valid in Florida due to groundwater and sediment influxes). Indeed, page 95 states "in Florida lakes, rainfall and groundwater sources tend to contribute a large portion of the volume of lake water. In fact, only about 20% of the more than 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them." The applicability of the Vollenweider method across the State is highly questionable because of these assumptions. It was for this reason that Florida has used Florida-specific lake models for Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation (WQBEL) studies since

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3662Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the 1970s. Also, as mentioned above, the absence of the EPA recommended limiting nutrient concept is noteworthy and limits the validity of this approach. 

# Comment ID 1261-1.001.013

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Item III.C(6)(a) - Downstream Protection of Lakes: EPA proposes that for the Vollenweider method, in the absence of site-specific data, the fraction of inflow related to all stream flow should be 50% (i.e., 50% of the lake's influx of water comes from streams) and the residence time is about 2 1/2 months (i.e., Tw = 0.2). EPA acknowledges (see above) that only 20% of Florida lakes have streams flowing into them; if so, how is it representative to use 50% of the influx as stream flow? Also, if 80% of Florida lakes have no stream influx, this implies that the residence time is very long, not very short. Documentation of these choices was not found in the Technical Reference Documents. Also, EPA did not propose a method for nitrogen control in lakes even though research in recent TMDLs for nutrient impairment in Florida Lakes show that many lakes are nitrogen limited and control of phosphorus does not control algal growth in these lakes. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.053

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Downstream Protection of Lakes

• The residence time was arbitrarily set to 2.5 months which is a gross simplification that may not pertain to any individual lake in Florida, yet be accurate as an average of all lakes. This becomes problematic when it comes time for each individual stream which contributes flow to a lake to be evaluated. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.054

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Downstream Protection of Lakes

• The assumption that 50% of the streamflow from a stream is delivered to the lake is likewise an arbitrary and gross estimation that is likely not relevant to any particular lake. The EPA recognized " only 20% of over 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them at all." How can EPA identify those lakes that receive at least 50% of the its total inflow from streams and on what basis do they make that assumption?

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3663Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.055

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Downstream Protection of Lakes

• It appears that the EPA calculation that reports the DPV as 0.12 mg/L did not take the square root of the lakes hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criteria than if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.007

Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division Comment 4 - Problems with Derivation of Downstream Protection Values 4-1) In regards to the downstream protection of lakes, EPD has concerns regarding the simplicity of the equation used to derive the proposed criteria. The equation does not include setting terms or account for other sources, such as atmospheric deposition or groundwater flow. EPD is concerned that this very simplistic approach will result in overprotective criteria that are not based on a biological response. These nutrient values will be applied to all streams that feed lakes within the watershed. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.016

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Downstream Protection of Lakes

- EPA discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.018

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners

- EPA has specifically allowed for the generation of site-specific downstream protective values for streams that deliver

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3664Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams flow into Florida lakes and it is recommended that site specific information on the proportion of streamflow delivered, retention times, and the contribution and exchange of groundwater in these lakes be considered prior to implementing any listing process based on the downstream protective values. 

# Comment ID 1362-1.001.010

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute C. Downstream Protection Values for Lakes EPA also is proposing to lower its proposed criteria for streams that discharge into downstream lakes. These downstream protective values (DPVs) are not based on data showing that receiving lakes are impaired. Instead, EPA used the Vollenweider model (which was developed to evaluate deep lakes with long retention times) to calculate the acceptable DPV. Using conservative assumptions, this model projects that even unimpacted streams would be a threat to downstream lakes. As a result, EPA's proposed established criteria would greatly increase the number of Florida waterbodies considered to be impaired. However, EPA's conclusions and its criteria are not scientifically defensible because the model used is simply not appropriate for many shallow Florida lakes. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.029

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division The previous suggestion to provide regional classifications for lakes is relevant to the Downstream Protection Value (DPV) for lakes. The modified Vollenweider equation referenced does not take into account the Nutrient Watershed Regions and the phosphorus-rich soils and geology of the Bone Valley in the component of the equation that applies to "applicable lake criterion," which is a state-wide criterion (Bachmann et al, 2010). 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.031

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division The method of establishment of the regional stream criteria using a minimally disturbed land use reference stream approach is inherently protective of regional lakes. For example, we would expect that streams with naturally high TP values that flow into lakes in the region likely are also naturally high in TP concentrations and have either developed a balanced ecology in a eutrophic state or are extremely nitrogen limited.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3665Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1434-1.001.025

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors T22 III C(6)(a) The HSWCD notes that in EPA's discussion of hydraulic retention time, the portion relating to preset values is not clear. For Highlands County's lakes with flowing streams, actual hydraulic retention times range from at the shortest, 0.2 years to more than 1 year. Additionally, the actual retention times may be much longer depending on climactic conditions. The HSWCD feels that these preset values do not reflect average conditions in our lakes and should be revisited. {p 4198, comment requested} 

# Comment ID 1473-1.001.038

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute EPA also is proposing to lower its proposed criteria for streams that discharge into downstream lakes. These downstream protective values (DPVs) are not based on data showing that receiving lakes are impaired. Instead, EPA used the Vollenweider model (which was developed to evaluate deep lakes with long retention times) to calculate the acceptable DPV. This model projects that even unimpacted streams are a threat to downstream lakes. As a result, EPA's proposed established criteria would greatly increase the number of Florida waterbodies considered to be impaired. However, EPA's conclusions and its criteria are not scientifically defensible because the model used is simply not appropriate for many shallow Florida lakes. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.013

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute G. Downstream Protection Values. EPA is proposing to include additional restrictions on allowable stream nutrient concentrations to protect lake water quality. These requirements were termed "downstream protective values" or stream DPVs. These more restrictive DPV requirements apply whenever a lake receives flow from a stream. The Agency estimates that only about 20 percent of Florida lakes review a surface water flow. TSD, at 2-16. EPA did not provide information showing that lakes receiving stream flows generally had unacceptable chlorophyll a levels (EPA's indicator of impairment). Rather, EPA used a Vollenweider model approach to calculate the acceptable DPV, based upon a projected protective loading to a "representative" lake using a series of conservative assumptions.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3666Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1474-1.001.087

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute The importance of this physical factor was misunderstood by the Agency in its DPV assessment for lakes. The Agency's assessment was correct in concluding that lakes with increased stream flows entering them have increased nutrient and likely chlorophyll a levels present. However, this conclusion does not mean that upstream nutrient levels must be reduced where those levels were based on conditions occurring in essentially un-impacted, or pristine, areas. Rather, this assessment confirmed that EPA's one-size-fits-all approach to lake nutrient criteria selection was misplaced, because it failed to account for a critical physical factor influencing the degree of plant growth that would naturally be expected to occur in lakes - watershed size feeding into the lake. In Minnesota's recent lake criteria adoption the lakes with a significant watershed (i.e., or run-of-the- river lakes or reservoirs) were determined to be distinct from other lake types. Because these waters naturally receive higher loadings, Minnesota is establishing higher water quality criteria for these waters. Minn. R. ch. 7050.0222. Based on the National Guidelines the critical factors influencing the expected impact of a pollutant are to be included in deriving criteria. The degree of stream flow entering a lake has been documented to be such a factor and, therefore, a separate category of lakes needs to be established reflecting the influence of this factor on the nutrient and chlorophyll a level that may reasonably be obtained for such waters. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.089

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute d. Lakes influenced by wetlands. The presence and extent of wetlands in and around a lake also has an impact on the degree of phytoplankton growth that will occur in open waters. EPA recognizes this is an important factor influencing phytoplankton growth in canals. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4213. Wetlands influence the degree to which nutrients are available and filter out nutrient loadings from the watershed. Thus, any assessment of lake DPVs would need to address this factor. Wetlands also stabilize sediment beds, reducing nutrient resuspension and changing the lake response to nutrient loadings. EPA's analysis failed to consider the importance of wetlands in improving water quality and controlling lake phytoplankton responses. Where a lake is dominated by wetlands but has a small open area, the expected response to nutrient concentrations is anticipated to be far less than waters that are not wetlands-dominated.



# Comment ID 1474-1.001.133

Author Name: Herz W.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3667Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Based on these multiple worst case assumptions, EPA concluded that phosphorus loads originating even from unimpacted areas was a threat to Florida lakes. The background conditions in Bone Valley and North Central areas, in particular, would be expected to cause excessive nutrient loading to lakes in those regions. As noted earlier, the implication of this analysis is not that lake impairments are being caused by natural conditions, it is that the lake targets chosen for these areas are misplaced. Lakes receiving high stream flow loads in areas with naturally high TP levels in soils will have higher plant growth levels occurring - naturally. That condition is not a violation of Florida law or the Clean Water Act. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.134

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute EPA's restricted evaluation led the Agency to the conclusion that the shortest detention time lakes would have the greatest nutrient problems. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4198. Nowhere, however, did EPA document that lakes with short detention times were suffering excessive plant growth or that stream loads from unimpacted areas would cause excessive plant growth. This is not surprising as the conclusion reached by EPA is obviously incorrect. A "lake" condition approaches a "stream" condition as detention time goes to zero. EPA has already determined that it could not find any significant phytoplankton growth issues in streams. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4194. Thus, it is apparent that the basic mechanistic framework being employed by EPA is flawed and contrary to the nutrient impact observations for lakes. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.135

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute The shorter the detention time the more quickly TP and any related plant growth will be flushed out of a system. The modeling approach used for this analysis (Vollenweider) was developed for deep, long detention time lakes where few other physical factors could influence the degree of plant growth occurring. This assumes a steady-state condition that does not exist in short detention time lakes. It is obvious that the assumptions inherent to a Vollenweider approach simply do not apply to shallow Florida lakes that may receive major loadings from groundwater and are influenced by macrophytic growth that allows further assimilation of nutrient loads. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.136

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3668Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams When EPA first recommended that states employ an ecoregional approach to criteria derivation, using unimpacted areas to derive acceptable criteria, EPA informed the public that such an approach was inherently protective. Now EPA asserts the opposite. Absent some independent confirmation that lakes with stream inputs are suffering significantly worse water quality impairments than lakes not receiving stream flows, the entire stream-DPV evaluation is pure speculation. EPA had the Florida lakes database and could easily have analyzed lakes with major stream inflow components to verify whether and when additional protection was necessary. No such analysis, however, exists in the record. The entire approach is nothing more than unsupported, and more typically contradicted, speculation. As acknowledged by EPA, the DPV calculations only "indicate potential concern for downstream protection." TSD, at 2-14. This concern is supported only if (1) the entire inflow is at or above the predicted concentration, (2) groundwater TP inputs are minimal, (3) resuspension is minimal, (4) macrophytes are not limiting phytoplankton growth via shading, (5) macrophytes are not assimilating phosphorus, (6) groundwater inflows flows are minimal, (7) zooplankton grazing is not significant, (8) phosphorus loss does not occur in streams, (9) lake outflow does not exceed stream inflow, (10) no other factors are limiting plant growth (e.g., color, turbidity), (11) the lower threshold of acceptable lake TP concentrations is necessary to prevent excessive plant growth and, (12) the assumed model conditions for residence time and inflow are representative of actual conditions. This is a chain of unproven and speculative assumptions that renders the need for the DVP values sheer guesswork for any particular lake. Moreover, this approach establishes a generic TMDL for all Florida lakes with stream inflow, contrary to the structure of the Clean Water Act. TMDL requirements are supposed to be tailored to site-specific conditions. 40 C.F.R. 130.7(c)(1). The Act does not allow EPA to simply conclude that because adequate data collection and modeling are difficult the agency can forgo that step and conclude load reductions are required without any evidence that the alleged excessive load is actually causing an impairment. The Act does not allow EPA to broadly decide water quality criteria must be made more restrictive based on generic, unsupported assumptions that are clearly not applicable to the vast majority of waters where those criteria will be applied. The National Guidelines expressly states that EPA should not develop criteria when data are insufficient to assure that the criteria are necessary to protect instream uses and that significant over/under regulation is not likely to occur. To the opposite, overregulation is certain to occur with EPA's proposed method of criteria derivation. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.140

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 3. The Vollenweider model, which is intended for use with deep, temperate lakes, is not appropriate for Florida lakes. EPA has made no demonstration that the Vollenweider approach is applicable to all Florida lakes (regardless of size, detention time and physical attributes) or that it accurately predicts when lake impairment will occur when considering only two physical factors - detention time and stream inflow percentage. Vollenweider's model was not developed for shallow lakes or short detention time situations that are subject to more complex algal growth and nutrient cycling dynamics. Absent this demonstration, EPA's use of this modeling methodology is unsupported. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.143

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3669Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute 6. Conclusions regarding EPA's proposed DPVs for lakes. This NPRM represents the first time EPA has tried to establish generic downstream protection values as generally applicable water quality criteria. According to EPA's Peer Review Handbook, when a methodology establishes a significant precedent, it should be peer reviewed. In addition, as discussed above, the Vollenweider model was not designed for use on the type of lakes commonly found in Florida. When a model is applied "to a situation that departs significantly from the situation it was originally designed to address," the novel use of the model should be peer reviewed even if the model itself has previously been reviewed for uses in other contexts. Thus, both the concept of downstream protection values and the use of these models to derive those values require peer review. EPA, Peer Review Handbook 3rd Edition (EPA/100/B- 06/0020), at 29-32. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.144

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Not only would EPA's downstream protection values be contrary to EPA's own guidance and regulations, they would upset and supersede a successful state program. The State of Florida's water quality protection program employs a watershed approach and focuses on TMDLs and basin management plans to successfully implement water quality standards. However, by changing its interpretation of 40 C.F.R. 131.10, EPA is superseding the ability of the State of Florida to determine how to meet water quality standards within the State through the total maximum daily load process established in the Watershed Restoration Act of 1999 (Fla. Stat. §403.067). In fact, the proposed DPVs would supersede successful TMDLs that have been developed by the State. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.145

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Finally, EPA's proposed DPVs would regulate nutrients below natural background levels. The Clean Water Act does not regulate natural background levels so DPVs that result in such regulation are not authorized. For all of these reasons, EPA's DPVs for lakes must be withdrawn. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.039

Author Name: Wehle C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3670Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: South Florida Water Management District F. How Are Lake Criteria Influenced by Downstream Criteria? Most Florida lakes discharge into streams or man-made canals. In these situations, USEPA has not explained whether lake numeric nutrient criteria are to be determined based on the proposed lake criteria or on the criteria for thedownstream waterbody. For example, within the District, all of the Lake Management Areas of the Kissimmee-Chain-ofLakes discharge into canal segments, which are classified as streams in that region. The lakes are the sole or primary source of water for these canals. Does this mean that TN and TP concentrations in lake discharges cannot exceed stream nutrient criteria (annual geometric mean concentrations) of 0.107 mg/L for TP and 1.203 mg/L for TN? Given that background TN levels in at least some of these lakes may be above 1.2 mg/L (see comment E above), this could require treatment to remove naturally occurring N. 

# Comment ID 1481-1.001.026

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department III C(6)(a) Highlands County notes that in EPA's discussion of hydraulic retention time, the portion relating to preset values is not clear. For Highlands County's lakes with flowing streams, actual hydraulic retention times range from at the shortest, 0.2 years to more than I year. Additionally, the actual retention times may be much longer depending on climactic conditions. Highlands County feels that these preset values do not reflect average conditions in our lakes and should be revisited. {p 4198, comment requested} 

# Comment ID 1615-1.001.014

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Public Works Item III C(6)(a) - Downstream Protection of Lakes: EPA proposes to use a lake phosphorus methodology by Vollenweider (1975 & 1976) which assumes that rainfall exceeds evaporation (reasonable for Florida) and that external phosphorus loading comes from streams (not valid in Florida due to groundwater and sediment influxes). Indeed, page 95 states "in Florida lakes, rainfall and groundwater sources tend to contribute a large portion of the volume of lake water. In fact, only about 20% of the more than 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them" The applicability of the Vollenweider method across the State is highly questionable because of these assumptions. It was for this reason that Florida has used Florida-specific lake models for Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation (WQBEL) studies since the 1970s. Also, as mentioned above, the absence of the EPA recommended limiting nutrient concept is noteworthy and limits the validity of this approach. Item llLC(6)(a) - Downstream Protection of Lakes: EPA proposes that for the Vollenweider method, in the absence of site-specific data, the fraction of inflow related to all stream flow should be 50% (i.e., 50% of the lake's influx of water comes from streams) and the residence time is about 2 '12 months (i.e., Tw = 0.2). EPA acknowledges (see above) that only 20% of Florida lakes have streams flowing into them; if so, how is it

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3671Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams representative to use 50% of the influx as stream flow? Also, if 80% of Florida lakes have no stream influx, this implies that the residence time is very long, not very short. Documentation of these choices was not found in the Technical Reference Documents. Also, EPA did not propose a method for nitrogen control in lakes even though research in recent TMDLs for nutrient impairment in Florida Lakes show that many lakes are nitrogen limited and control of phosphorus does not control algal growth in these lakes. 

# Comment ID 1671-1.001.008

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection The proposed rule for the protection of downstream lakes is inaccurate and unnecessary. The error associated with the total phosphorus loading results provided by the Vollenweider formula is too large to use as a water quality standard. The Vollenweider formula was derived using northern, deep lakes that do not exist in Florida, and a one size fits all formula does not work for the varying dynamics of the 7,000 lakes in Florida. The water quality models referred to in EPA's Technical Support Document would produce much fewer errors. Additionally, the assumption that zero phosphorus is attenuated in streams (i.e., that 100% of phosphorus in the headwaters reaches the lake) is not correct. This may occur over geologic timeframes considering geologic procedures, but it is not the intent of the Clean Water Act to govern natural geologic processes. Fortunately, the in-stream protection values offered by the Department provide inherent protection of downstream lakes making additional downstream protection values for lakes lUU1ecessaly. The Department requests that EPA reconsider their proposal to adopt a single formula to represent all lake conditions in Florida, acknowledge that the combination of lake and stream criteria meets the intent of the law, and let the other programs authorized by the Clean Water Act serve to ensure protection of both streams and downstream waters. Adoption of the proposed formula will result in excessive process for the establislul1ent of site specific criteria because the formula does not reflect true lake water quality processes. 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Overall Comment: the Downstream Protection Value concept is legally unnecessary and the Vollenweider Derived Formula Contains too many Technical Weaknesses to be used for Criteria Adoption Legal Analysis: Federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(b) state, "In designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the State shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and shall ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters." EPA has interpreted this provision to mean that each and every criteria established by a State must ensure the protection of downstream waters, however that interpretation is not necessary. A just as valid interpretation is that the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3672Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams State's standards (versus each component of its standards) as adopted must ensure the protection of downstream waters. When a State's water quality standards contain protective criteria for both upstream and downstream waters, then it can be argued that a State's standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of water quality standards of both the upstream and downstream waters. Once the criteria for lakes are promulgated, Florida will have standards for the downstream lake waters that provide for their attainment and maintenance and it is not necessary or reasonable to establish stream DPVs when the science needed to create the link between upstream and downstream is lacking. Technical consideration: This provision can also be met if it is demonstrated that the upstream criteria does in fact provide for the attainment and maintenance of downstream waters. In the case of the In- Stream Protection Values, as proposed by FDEP, since those were derived using minimally disturbed sites with respect to nutrients, then the nutrient delivery to the downstream lakes would be considered protective of the lake's current natural eutrophication characteristic. All lakes that receive flow from streams are undergoing natural eutrophication and stream contribution that is not anthropogenically elevated would be a part of that natural process. Additionally, the proposed EPA approach produces DPV values that are larger that the IPV values the majority of the time. 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.002

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Conclusion on Vollenweider The Vollenweider Formula, as derived in the proposed criteria, is not appropriately applied and contains sufficient technical weaknesses to lead one to conclude that the approach should be abandoned. The technical weaknesses generally lead to the formula not being protective of the lakes in Florida and therefore should not be used to direct Clean Water Act activities. Additionally, given the fate and transport of Total Phosphorus (TP) in streams, the FDEP proposed numeric nutrient criteria for stream protection, using minimally disturbed sites, is inherently protective of downstream lakes. Testing the Vollenweider Formula on Lakes in Florida Application of Vollenweider on Six Florida Lakes The DEP tested the formula proposed by EPA by comparing the results of the formula to TMDLs that have been developed for several lakes using more rigorous methods. The following results are provided for Lake Marion, Lake Jackson, Lake Cypress, and Lake Kissimmee (Kissimmee Basin), Lake Persimmon (Lake Placid Basin), and Lake Jesup, (Middle St. Johns River Basin). The TMDL results for the lakes in the Kissimmee River and Lake Placid Basins are preliminary and have not been subject to peer-review or public comment. However, draft TMDL documents have been produced for each lake and are currently under internal review. The TMDLs for Lakes Marian, Jackson, Cypress, Kissimmee, and Persimmon were based on use of the Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF) model. HSPF is a time-varying (dynamic) mathematical model developed under joint EPA and USGS sponsorship for simulating hydrologic and water quality

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3673Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams processes in natural and man-made water systems. HSPF uses such information as the time history of rainfall, temperature, evaporation, and parameters related to land use patterns, soil characteristics, and agricultural practices to simulate the processes that occur in a watershed and predict watershed loadings to stream or lake reaches. The initial result of an HSPF simulation is a time history of the quantity and quality of water transported over the land surface and through various soil zones down to the groundwater aquifers. Runoff flow rate, sediment loads, nutrients, pesticides, toxic chemicals, and other quality constituent concentrations can be predicted. The model uses these results and stream/lake channel information to simulate in-stream processes. From this information, HSPF produces a time history of water quantity and quality at any point in the watershed. HSPF is currently one of the most comprehensive and flexible models of watershed hydrology and water quality available. The TMDL development for Lake Jesup involved estimating nutrient loadings using the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)'s curve number approach. This approach estimates the surface runoff from the watershed based on landuse, hydrological soil group information, and antecedent moisture condition of the soil. Nutrient loadings were calculated as the product between surface runoff and event mean concentrations (EMCs) of nutrients established for different landuse categories. The natural attenuation of nutrients within the watershed, nutrient removal by best management practices, and nutrient contributions from septic tanks and ground water were also considered in the modeling. Target nutrient loadings were established through linking the SCS model with the Bathtub model. The Bathtub model applies a series of empirical eutrophication models to lakes and reservoirs. The program performs steady-state water and nutrient balance calculations in a spatially segmented hydraulic network, which accounts for advective and diffusive transport,and nutrient sedimentation. Eutrophication-related water quality conditions (total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chlorophylla, transparency, and hypolimnetic oxygen depletion) are predicted using empirical relationships derived from assessments of reservoir data. In this case, the Bathtub model used the nutrient loadings simulated by the SCS model as input to estimate the in-lake nutrient and Chl a concentrations. The target nutrient loadings were determined by adjusting the watershed nutrient loading until the in-lake TN and TP concentrations met the target TN and TP concentrations. For comparison of the modeled protective loads against the Vollenweider calculated protective loads, the following Vollenweider formula, which serves as the basis for EPA's proposed standard for protection of downstream lakes, was used: Original comment letter contains additional information as an equation on the top of page 5 of the pdf. See original comment letter. For all cases except Lake Kissimmee, use of the FDEP TMDL TP concentration as the "criterion" resulted in the Vollenweider equation predicting a greater allowable load than determined by the calibrated model (note that under EPA's proposal, the TP concentration would be set at the applicable lake criterion, possibly including a "modified criteria", and DEP used the TMDL-based TP concentration to better evaluate the impact of the Vollenweider equation). Use of the EPA approach would have resulted (or would result) in allowing a 52% greater TP load to Lake Marion than the FDEP TMDL, 22% greater for Lake Jackson, 6% for Lake Cypress, 42% greater loading for Lake Persimmon, and 48% greater loading for Lake Jesup. The Vollenweider calculation resulted in a lower allowable load compared to the modeled protective load for Lake Kissimmee. However, the estimated TMDL loads are preliminary at this time. The EPA-Vollenweider approach allows on average 26% more loading than the current draft TMDL loads. Table 1 shows that the EPA approach would produce different results than the Departments draft TMDLs in 5 out of 6 lakes.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3674Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Comparison of FDEP TMDL to Vollenweider Results for loading rate and Total Allowable TP Load. See original comment letter. Application of EPA's proposed formula on Lake Okeechobee The EPA equation derived from the Vollenweider model was also tested to calculate a stream target concentration for the tributaries that flow into Lake Okeechobee. Briefly, Lake Okeechobee is the largest freshwater lake in Florida, covering approximately 730 square miles. The major hydrologic inputs into the lake include rainfall directly onto the lake surface (39 %) and the Kissimmee River (31 %), while the other 30% is from Fisheating Creek, Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough, and numerous smaller inflows, such as discharges from the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), Harney Pond basin, and Indian Prairie Creek basin. The long-term (1974-2008) annual water budgets and the in-lake target concentration for Lake Okeechobee have been well established, as shown in Table 2. The key assumption allowing EPA to predict upstream concentration from the modified Vollenweider equation (based on lake physical characteristics and in-lake TP concentrations) is that total streamflow into a lake (Qin, in m3/yr) cannot be more than the net outflow. It would be a violation of the derivation of the EPA equation from the Vollenweider equation to use the EPA version in situations where this assumption was not true. As depicted in Table 2 and Figure 1, the annual inflows and outflows for Lake Okeechobee satisfied the EPA assumption Qin < Qout (highlighted in grey) in only 8 out of 35 years. This means that the EPA approach was not applicable in about 77% of the 35 years of observation. The longterm (35-yr) average of inflow and outflow also indicate that stream inflow is greater than outflow, indicating that the EPA equation is not applicable to Lake Okeechobee even over long time periods. Based on the eight years that satisfied the assumption, the calculated average target stream concentration would be 176 ppb. Considering that the assumption was only met about 23% of the time, using the EPA approach to set a single TP target over the entire basin seems oversimplified for Lake Okeechobee. In contrast, the SWIM TP target concentrations for Lake Okeechobee have been developed for each basin (for a total of 29 basins), ranging from 60 ppb to 180 ppb (FDEP, 2001). The SWIM targets reasonably reflect a spatially heterogeneous system with the ecological zones in the lake. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. Annual Water Budgets for Lake Okeechobee from 1974 to 2008. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 1. Annual inflow (Qin) versus outflow (Qout). Dashed line indicates a 1 to 1 line for Qin = Qout. See original comment letter. Evaluation of the Derivation of the Vollenweider Formula EPA proposal to use a modified Vollenweider requires putting an upstream phosphorus concentration component into the Vollenweider model that, in its original form, does not have this component. With this document, we raise some concerns on using this approach to establish the upstream criteria for protection of downstream lakes. The derivation of the EPA modified Vollenweider model for establishing the upstream phosphorus criteria starts from the Vollenweider TP loading model:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3675Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information in an equation and a description of the terms in the equation in EPA Equation 1 on page 9 of the pdf. See original comment letter. This model was derived from the original Vollenweider phosphorus loading model, which was strictly a theoretical mass balance model that takes the form of: Original comment letter contains additional information in an equation and a description of the terms in the equation of Vollenweider Equation 1 on page 9 of the pdf. See original comment letter. One major difficulty in using the original Vollenweider model was that, in most cases, there is no readily available specific sedimentation rate measurement for phosphorus (p). In 1975, Vollenweider provided an empirical equation based on his studies on 25 temperate lakes that p = 10/z. In 1976, he proposed another empirical equation, which related the phosphorus sedimentation rate with the hydraulic residence time. The empirical equation is p = 1/Tw. Substituting this equation into the Vollenweider Equation 1 listed above, and multiplying both sides of the Vollenweider Equation 1 by the depth of the lake (z) results in the form of Vollenweider model that is represented as EPA Equation 1. It should be noted that the original Vollenweider model, while built on a theoretical mass balance equation, is based on several background assumptions. The model assumes that the modeled lake is a completely and constantly mixed waterbody, the phosphorus sedimentation rate is proportional to the amount of phosphorus in the lake, and the concentration in the outflow of the lake is the same as the concentration in the lake. In addition, the Vollenweider model assumes that the phosphorus cycle of the lake is at steady state, with the total phosphorus loading entering the lake equal to the phosphorus loadings leaving the lake through different pathways. These assumptions are reasonable for simulating the phosphorus budget for lakes on a long-term average basis (multiple years), which average out the seasonal and annual variations in hydrology. But the model is not appropriate to address year-by-year phosphorus variation because in some years the local hydrology may violate the steady state assumption, especially for lakes with control structure at the outlet, which is not uncommon for Florida lakes. Also, for lakes with multiple compartments that are not completely mixed, assuming complete mixing may overestimate the effect of the loading on some part of the lake, while underestimating the effect on other parts of the lake. Another point needs to be made about using the Vollenweider model for Florida lakes is the use of phosphorus sedimentation rate in the model. Before the p = 1/Tw was proposed by Vollenweider in 1975, the original Vollenweider model was a dimensionally and theoretically-correct mass balance equation. After including the 1/Tw item into his equation, the Vollenweider model becomes a semiempirical model and the model’s dimensions were thrown off. This is why the units of the Vollenweider model (in the form of EPA Equation 1) do not add up. Of course, the model is still useful. But when doing the calculation, while we still use the annual dimension for the hydraulic retention time, the Tw item should be considered unitless. One key issue to be addressed before using the Vollenweider model to simulate the relationship between phosphorus loading and phosphorus concentration for Florida lakes is whether the hydraulic retention time Tw has the same effect on the phosphorus loading into Florida Lakes as it had on the phosphorus loading into the lakes that Vollenweider used to build the model. All the lakes that Vollenweider used to build his model were temperate northern lakes, many of them glacier kettle lakes with relative small surface area and relatively large depth. Summer thermal stratification, which prevents phosphorus settled out of the water column from returning back to the surface zone of the lake (epilimnion), is fairly common for temperate northern lakes, but mostly does not exist in Florida lakes. Most of Florida's lakes are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3676Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams relatively shallow and many have large surface area to drainage basin ratios. Wind mixing may easily stir up the sediment and bring settled phosphorus back to the water column. While several studies focusing on building phosphorus loading models found that apparent phosphorus settling velocity (zp) in temperate northern lakes ranged from 13 to 16 m/year (Chapra 1975, Kirchner and Dillon 1975), a study based on 101 Florida lakes found an average settling velocity of 8.5 m/year (Baker et al. 1981). Therefore, it is prudent to examine the relationship between Tw or produce a relationship between p and other hydrologic or morphological characteristics that are specific for Florida lakes, instead of directly using the p = 1/Tw relationship that was derived from northern temperate lakes. Of course the final goal for EPA is to use the Vollenweider model to derive the upstream allowable phosphorus concentration that is protective of the downstream lake. Therefore, an upstream phosphorus concentration item needs to be fashioned into the Vollenweider model, which, be it in the form of Vollenweider Equation 1 or EPA Equation 1, does not have any upstream concentration components. The loading components in both forms of the Vollenweider equation include phosphorus loading from all sources into the lake, which can include loading from the inlet stream, watershed runoff, direct precipitation on the lake, and ground water contribution. However, since EPA's goal is to determine the upstream phosphorus concentration that is protective of the downstream lake, an upstream concentration component is needed to be included in the model. Therefore, EPA made two major assumptions when modifying the Vollenweider model, (1) The stream flow cannot be larger than the lake outflow, which results in the EPA Equation 2: Original comment letter contains additional information in a description of equation terms in EPA Equation 2. See original comment letter. This assumption implies that the evaporation from the lake is mostly balanced or less than the rainfall directly onto the surface of the lake. On a long-term annual time scale, this assumption is reasonable. Table 3 shows the rainfall data collected from eight weather stations and evaporation data (corrected with a pan evaporation coefficient of 0.86) collected from two weather stations located in the Kissimmee River basin, central Florida area. The data show that the 11-year long-term average annual accumulative rainfall is very similar to the 11-year long-term average annual evaporation rate, indicating that EPA's assumption is reasonable on the long-term average annual time scale. However, EPA' s assumption is not correct on a year-by-year basis because annual evaporation rate from the lake surface can exceed annual rainfall in some years (especially in 2000, 2001, and 2006). This is also true for Lake Okeechobee as depicted in Table 2. These data also suggest that, while the hydrology of Florida lakes can be considered being at a steady state on a long-term average basis, the steady state assumption does not apply on either a year-by-year basis or if unusual weather patterns extend over several consecutive years. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3. Accumulative Annual Rainfall and Evaporation Rate from Weather Stations in the Kissimmee River Basin. See original comment letter. (2) EPA further assumed that all phosphorus loading is from the stream, and therefore created EPA Equation 3 Original comment letter contains additional information in a description of equation terms in EPA Equation 3. See original comment letter. After rearranging the equation and substituting EPA Equation 2 into EPA Equation 3, the final equation (EPA Equation 4) sets up the relationship between the target lake phosphorus concentration and hydraulic residence time with the inlet stream phosphorus concentration that is protective for the downstream lake.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3677Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Original comment letter contains additional information in a description of equation terms in EPA Equation 4. See original comment letter. The major concern with EPA's assumption (2) is that, while EPA indeed put in a Cf factor to account for the flow from sources other than the single inlet stream, the phosphorus loading from all the other sources are primarily considered zero. This is not consistent with the loading distributions for Florida lakes, which, in many cases, can receive phosphorus loadings from multiple inlet streams as well as loadings through runoff from the drainage areas immediately adjacent to the lakes, direct precipitation onto the lake, and also through ground water. Table 4 shows the phosphorus loading distribution for Lake Jesup, an eutrophic lake located in Orange and Seminole Counties. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 4. Phosphorus Load Distribution from Different Sources into Lake Jesup (tons/year). See original comment letter. Table 4 shows that, for Lake Jesup, there is no dominant single one stream that contributes the majority of the phosphorus loading into the lake. The largest loading came from Howell Creek, which only accounted for about 20% of the total phosphorus budget. Loading from surface runoff, baseflow, Artesian input, and atmospheric deposition together account for about 42% of the total phosphorus loading into the lake. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 5 Percent contribution of different sources of TP for four lakes in the Kissimmee River Basin. See original comment letter. Data in Table 5, support the conclusion that even in cases where over 50% of the total load is coming from streams, baseflow, runoff, and direct precipitation onto the lake surface account for a significant portion of the total TP mass load. These data clearly indicate that assuming most of the phosphorus loading entering a lake is through a single dominant stream and considering loadings from all other sources as being negligible does not apply to all Florida lakes. DEP acknowledges that there is at least one scenario in which EPA Equation 4 can be modified to estimate the upstream nutrient criteria that is protective of downstream lakes. For example, if a given lake a) receives phosphorus loading from, say, three different inlet streams, b) the three creeks have similar phosphorus concentrations, c) the drainage basin immediately adjacent to the lake shares a similar land use pattern to the drainage areas of the three inlet streams, d) the majority of the ground water entering the lake is through the inlet streams instead of directly into the lake, and e) the surface area of the lake, compared to the entire drainage basin, is relatively small, and therefore the atmospheric deposition onto the lake is not a major source of phosphorus loading to the lake, the same phosphorus concentration criteria can be given to all three inlet streams and the surface runoff as the target event mean concentration. In this case, phosphorus loadings from all the sources, instead of just from the single one dominant inlet stream, are considered in the model, and EPA Equation 4 can be revised to the following form: Original comment letter contains additional information in an equation on page 14 of the pdf. See original comment letter. The [TP]in in this equation is the target concentration that applies to all the inlet streams as well as the surface runoff from the immediate drainage basin. How many Florida lakes actually meet this special condition is unknown and should

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3678Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams be investigated before applying the EPA approach. But even with all these conditions satisfied, using the model to address the year-by-year condition still faces the challenges of addressing non-steady state conditions and that the phosphorus sediment vs. hydraulic residence time relationship in the EPA equation is not specific to Florida lakes. It should be noted that the Vollenweider model is a mass balance model and does not address the effect of phosphorus loading on the lake water quality condition. The lake phosphorus target can be addressed using EPA's lake criteria. However, EPA Equation 4 implies that the longer the hydraulic residence time of a lake, the higher the phosphorus criteria can be for the inlet stream. This is counter intuitive because the longer the hydraulic residence time for a lake, the higher the chance that phytoplankton may have sufficient time to use the phosphorus to produce an algal bloom, and therefore, the inlet stream phosphorus criteria should be lower to be protective for the lake instead of being higher. If EPA wants to use EPA Equation 4 to establish the upstream nutrient criteria that is protective of downstream lakes, the nutrient criteria of the lake should also be related to the hydraulic residence time of the lake. However, the lake nutrient criteria currently proposed by EPA are based on the color and alkalinity of the lake only and do not consider water residence time. The data from these lakes indicate use of a fixed "preset" value of 50% for percent contribution from stream flow as proposed by EPA will underestimate the contribution ~50% of the time (range in lake specific information is from 5% to 85%) and over estimate it ~50%. Similarly, hydraulic retention time varied from 0.026 years to 2.6 years, and using a fixed preset of 0.2 years would result in not being protective about 50% of the time. EPA proposes to use the Land Development Index (LDI) as an indicator of how to treat inflow from sources other than stream inflow. However, we could not locate where the EPA document provides the details of how the LDI would be used (EPA only stated they would use the LDI as an indicator of the relative contribution from direct surface water runoff into a lake). If substantial local runoff was predicted and the LDI points to TP as having the potential to be elevated, EPA would add this source to the "fraction inflow" input to the Lake equation. We assume that EPA would look at Event Mean Concentrations and percent impervious, and increase the fraction inflow accordingly. In our experience, water from local runoff, precipitation, groundwater etc, all have concentrations that are different from (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) the major inlet stream concentrations. The EPA approach wrongly assumes all inflow sources would have the same concentration as the inlet stream. The Vollenweider equation is only valid for a single source stream or where all sources have the same concentration. Additionally, Jones and Lee 1982, indicate that use of average hydraulic residence times in lakes with seasonally variable depths is not appropriate. SUMMARY In summary, using EPA Equation 4 to establish the upstream phosphorus criteria has significant uncertainties and is not suitable for many lakes. The equation, if not correctly and carefully applied, would fail to protect many Florida lakes. These uncertainties are associated with (1) the applicability in Florida of the original assumptions of the Vollenweider model, (2) the applicability of the two key assumptions made by EPA to modify the Vollenweider model, and (3) use of a phosphorus sedimentation rate that was derived based on data from temperate northern lakes (does not take into account re-suspension of TP within a lake and therefore could over estimate the sedimentation). The assumption made by EPA that stream inflow is always lower than the outflow does not address the yearby- year variation evident in Florida lakes. Assuming the majority of the phosphorus loading is entering a lake through a dominant single inlet stream does not address the situation where a lake may receive significant phosphorus loading from multiple streams, as well as from other sources with potentially different phosphorus concentrations. Assigning fixed presets for hydraulic retention time and percent stream contribution cannot be assumed to be protective of Florida lakes. There are also

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3679Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams uncertainties associated with discrepancies between the approach used to develop the lake nutrient criteria and the approach used to develop the upstream criteria, primarily how the in-lake nutrient target should be reconciled with the water residence time used in the EPA Equation 4. Because of the potential for harm to Florida's lakes from use of the current version of the EPA modified Vollenweider equation, we recommend that the application of the EPA approach be withdrawn. 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.004

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Evaluation of other Formula's for Prediction of Phosphorus in Lakes FDEP submitted as part of our comment package a paper published in 1981 by Canfield and Bachmann on the use of phosphorus formulas to predict lake water quality in both natural and artificial lakes. This paper explores many different empirical models and the confidence limits associated with the formula's prediction. The formula with the highest correlation coefficient (r = 0.83) still has a large 95% confidence interval (31-288% of the calculated total phosphorus value). So, not only did the FDEP testing of the formulaic approach produce inaccurate results, the historical reviews of the best lake prediction formulas confirmed that you would expect a high degree of error. The error is compounded when you apply default values in lakes that have different hydraulic retention times and fraction of inflow due to stream flow than the default values. The analysis in the next Section demonstrates the changes in the resulting downstream protection value that result from different hydraulic retention times and fractions of inflow due to stream flow. Incorrect input values (as would likely be represented by default values) entered into the formula will most often produce incorrect results for a given lake, which is compounded by the fact that incorrect results are likely even when correct input values are used. The Total Maximum Daily Load program has numerous years of experience with generating protective nutrient loads and concentrations for the protection of lakes. That program has long abandoned this empirical formula approach in lieu of more accurate dynamic and sensitive water quality models such as BATHTUB and WASP. If EPA is intent of endorsing a particular method of calculating lake protection values that are implementable and do not result in the State expending resources to adopt corrected criteria every time we implement standards, it must seriously consider more sophisticated models that calibrate more closely as the tool of choice. Additionally, EPA should not apply default values in the absence of data. That will force erroneous regulatory and programmatic decisions, particularly in the context of 303(d) listing. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection takes our assessment programs very seriously, and will not implement criteria in a manner that is not supported by scientific analysis. Testing the Vollenweider Formula DPV against IPV While the Department does not support use of this equation to calculate the upstream concentration that is protective ofdownstream lakes, should EPA disagree, we provide the following analysis to support the position that the proposed instream criteria (IPVs) are inherently more protective of downstream lakes than the DPVs calculated by this equation.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3680Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 6 Regional Stream Criteria for TP. See original comment letter. All the Stream DPV concentrations are calculated using the equation below. Original comment letter contains additional information in an equation and a description of the terms in the equation. See original comment letter. As the Lake TP criteria for colored lakes can range from 0.05 mg/L to 0.157 mg/L, the stream DPV (using default Cf and Tw) ranges from 0.145 mg/L to 0.454 mg/L. Lakes with incoming stream flow (the subject of these provision) will most likely be colored lakes. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2: Plot of Stream Concentration [TP]s vs. EPA Lake Criterion [TP]l for Colored Lakes. See original comment letter. Figure 2 depicts the relationship between the regional IPVs, the 0.05 mg/L criterion for colored lakes, and the upstream DPV values for the default Cf of 0.5 and Tw of 0.2 (data contained in Tables 6 and 7). Under these conditions, the IPVs in the Panhandle (0.043 mg/L) and Peninsula Florida (0.107 mg/L) are always protective. The major impact of DPV on IPV will be in the Bone Valley and North Central areas, where TP concentrations are naturally high. To address the difference between the IPV and DPV in these areas, it appears to be more appropriate to address the lake TP taget by taking into consideration the high natural TP concentrations in the areas instead of just defaulting to a scheme based only on the colored-clear-alkaline-acidic lake classification method. The Department is researching alternative lake criteria that could be used in those areas of the state with geology that results in a naturally high stream and lake TP. As stated previously, lakes that have received high natural phosphorus concentrations over time to geology will have different water quality expectations than others. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 7 Colored Lakes DPV Stream Concentration vs. EPA Lake Criterion Using Default values for Cf and Tw. See original comment letter. Figure 3 depicts the relationship between stream DPV and Cf for each end of the range of Colored Lake criteria (0.05 mg/L and 0.157 mg/L). The graph shows that as the fraction of total flow entering a lake through streams is reduced, the allowable stream DPV goes up. At a lake criterion of 0.05 mg/L, the DPV would be 0.072 mg/L for lakes with 100% stream flow and 0.724 mg/L for lakes with only 10% of total flow from streams (Table 8). In all such cases, the IPV is protective of colored lakes. Figure 4 depicts the relationship for Colored Lakes between stream DPV and Tw using the default Cf of 0.5. Table 9 contains the data used to produce Figure4. Using these data with a lake criterion of 0.05 mg/L the stream DPV could vary from less than 0.128 mg/L for Tw less than 30 days (Tw = 0.08) and greater than 0.241 mg/L for Tw greater than 2 years (Tw = 2). As the residence time increases, the DPV decreases. In all such cases, the IPV is protective. As the fraction of inflow from streams (Cf) goes up, stream DPV goes down. As residence time (Tw) goes up, stream DPV goes up. From Figures 3 and 4 it can seen that changes in Cf produce much greater shifts in DPV than do changes in Tw.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3681Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3. Stream DPV vs. Cf (0.1 - 1.0). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 8: Change in Stream DPV as a function of Cf (percent Stream flow). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. Stream DPV vs. Tw (0.01 - 2.0). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 9 Colored Lakes Cf fixed at 0.5 and Tw varied from 4 days to 2 years. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 10 Colored Lakes (TP criterion = 0.05 mg/L) and Tw = 0.2. See original comment letter. Cf values greater than 100 percent are not possible. For Colored lakes, holding Tw constant at 0.2 (73 days) gives the following results when Cf is varied.
1. For the Panhandle a TP-IPV of 0.04 mg/L is protective for all lakes. Cf would need to be greater than 180 percent of total inflow from all sources, not just stream flow (not possible) before the Vollenweider equation predicts a [TP]s less than the IPV given a Tw of 0.2.
2. For the Peninsula Region a TP-IPV of 0.107 is protective for all lakes where Cf values are less than 67.5 percent of the total inflow from all sources (not protective when Cf is greater than 67.5 percent when Tw is 0.2).
3. For the Central Region a TP-IPV of 0.359 is protective for all lakes where Cf values are less than 20.1 percent of the total stream flow when Tw is 0.2. 4. For the Bone Valley Region a TP-IPV of 0.739 is protective for all lakes where Cf values are less than 9.8 percent of the total stream flow when Tw is 0.2. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 11. Colored Lakes (TP Criterion = 0.05 mg/L) and Cf = 0.5. See original comment letter. For Colored Lakes, holding Cf constant at 0.5 (50%) gives the following results when Tw is varied.
1. For the Panhandle a TP-IPV of 0.04 mg/L is protective for all lakes. The equation predicts [TP]s greater than 0.04 for all Tw's greater than 1 minute when Cf is 0.5. Convention dictates that a waterbody is only a lake if the retention time is greater than 14 days.
2. For the Peninsula Region a TP-IPV of 0.107 is protective for all lakes where Tw values are greater than 0.005 (2 days). The equation predicts [TP]s greater than 0.107 for all Tw's greater than 2 days when Cf is 0.5. Convention dictates that a waterbody is only a lake if the retention time is greater than 14 days.
3. For the Central Region a TP-IPV of 0.359 is protective for all lakes where Tw values are greater than 6.7 years. The

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3682Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams equation predicts [TP]s greater than 0.359 for all Tw's greater than 6.7 years when Cf is 0.5.
4. For the Bone Valley Region a TP-IPV of 0.739 is protective for all lakes where Tw values are greater than 40.8 years. The equation predicts [TP]s greater than 0.739 for all Tw's greater than 40.8 years when Cf is 0.5. The information above is based on Colored Lakes and varying Cf while Tw is held constant and then varying Tw while Cf is held constant. We understand that [TP]s decreases as Cf is increased and increases as Tw is increased. Based on this relationship, a set of worst-case scenarios were developed by increasing Cf at the same time that Tw is decreasing. Table 12 depicts the results from one such scenario varying Cf and Tw in opposite directions at the same time for all three types of lakes (Colored, Clear Alkaline, and Clear Acidic).In Table 12, Cf is varied from 10% to 100% while Tw is varied from 3.8 years to 4 days. The table represents the worstcase possible Cf and Tw parings. The Vollenweider equation can be reduced to DPV = Lake Criterion * ((1+square root of Tw)/Cf). In this case, ((1+square root of Tw)/Cf) is termed the conversion factor. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 12 Worst Case Cf and Tw Combinations vs. Lake Criteria. See original comment letter. From Tables 7- 12, it can be seen that under these combinations of Cf and Tw, the Panhandle IPV of 0.04 mg/L is always protective in colored lakes, protective in clear alkaline lakes until Cf approaches 100 percent and Tw is less than 0.2, and in clear acidic lakes whenever Cf is less than 40 percent and Tw approaches 1 year. In Peninsular Florida, the IPV of 0.107 mg/l is protective of colored lakes whenever, the residence time (Tw) is greater than ~ 2 months and the fraction of total flow from streams (Cf) is less than 75%, protective in clear alkaline lakes whenever Cf is less than ~55 percent and Tw is greater than ~8 months, and protective in clear acidic lakes when Cf is less than ~25 percent and Tw is greater than ~ 2years. Many other combinations of Cf and Tw are protective. For example, if Cf is less than 50 percent, any lake with a residence time greater than 2 days is protected. As discussed above, it may be more appropriate in areas with naturally high TP (such as the Central Area and Bone Valley) to investigate site specific conditions rather than rely on simplified approaches to determine in-stream concentrations that would be protective of downstream lakes. As demonstrated above, the simplified approach should not be used to calculate downstream protective criteria in these areas of the state because the proposed lake criteria should take into account local naturally occurring sources of TP. Even so, in colored lakes, based on the Vollenweider equation, the IPV of 0.359 mg/L in the North Central Area, would be protective whenever the residence time was greater than ~2 years and the total inflow from streams was less than ~30 percent. Additionally, whenever Cf is less than 20 percent and Tw is greater than ~ 2 months, these lakes are protected. The IPV of 0.739 mg/l for the Bone Valley would be protective whenever the residence time was greater than ~ 3 years and the total inflow from streams was less than ~ 10 percent. Additionally, whenever Cf is less than 9.8 percent and Tw is greater than ~ 2 months, these colored lakes are protected. It is our understanding that the Peninsula area of the state does not include an abundance of Clear and Acidic lakes (TP criteria = 0.01 mg/L, default DPV = 0.03 mg/L). In addition, many clear lakes that are present are located in the ridge areas and are relatively isolated without major inlet streams (Cf would be low). Therefore, the number of streams whose IPV can be impacted by the calculated DPV of 0.03 mg/L should be small.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3683Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Lakes within the same drainage basin, where the lakes are hydrologically connected, should fall in the same criterion category (colored, clear etc). All of these lakes will have the same lake criterion. The head water of each stream segment will be dominated by the water leaving the lake. Under these circumstances no DPV is needed, because all of the proposed lake criteria are less than the stream criteria and all of the water quality for all of these streams that interconnect these lakes will be controlled by water quality of the lake. As noted by Tetra-Tech to EPA the use of representative regional, best estimate, or average values as default coefficients in these simplified methods, must include the "explicit understanding that the estimates may be incorrect when applied to a particular lake and tributary."


# Comment ID 1673-1.001.005

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Analysis of Duration and Frequency of Proposed Criteria EPA Expression: None Comment: The duration and frequency for the downstream protection values derived using the formula should be the same duration and frequency for the total phosphorus target value used in the derivation. However, there is a disconnect between the [TP]L variable in the formula (being an annual geometric mean) and the derivation of the formula (being long term/steady state). FDEP's analysis of the formula points out the problems with treating the formula output on an annual basis. If the Vollenweider formula or any steady state analysis is used in the final rule, the duration of [TP]S needs to be long term, which is not the current TP lake criterion Incorrect Assumption Regarding the Fate and Transport of Total Phosphorus in Flowing Waterbodies upstream of Lakes In the development of the total phosphorus in EPA's criteria for the protection of downstream lakes, EPA assumes that there is no phosphorous loss or uptake in streams as they flow towards lakes. In other words, phosphorus loads and concentrations in the headwaters streams of the watershed do not attenuate at all as they move towards the lake, regardless of hydrology, distance, and ecological interactions. However, no citation is provided in support of the assumption, and the assumption is counter to findings in much of the literature regarding fate and transport of phosphorus, and is not consistent with practices embraced by water quality modelers across the country. In fact, a significant amount of research has been conducted to better estimate phosphorus fate and transport in streams in recognition of actual phosphorus loss and uptake that should be recognized by EPA prior to including such an unfounded assumption. Smith, USGS 2003 found that large variations in natural background concentrations of TP can occur over short distances. The authors report that travel time through a stream segment is a large factor controlling cumulative nutrient loss in streams during downstream transport. Flaig and Reddy 1995, publishing results for wetlands and streams in the Lake Okeechobee watershed in south Florida

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3684Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams found that TP in runoff is partially assimilated in wetland and stream sediments. A large portion of TP discharged into wetlands and streams was stored in soils and sediments. About 80% of TP stored in above ground biomass is released into the water column upon decomposition. Whereas TP stored in below ground biomass represents long-term storage with the TP associated with iron and aluminum oxyhydroxides accounting for 20-71% of TP in streams. They report a TP settling rate of 11 - 15 m/yr under ambient conditions (not up against a dairy or other discharger of TP) with ~ 80% of the adsorption sites in stream sediments available for additional TP absorption. They report that TP retention is proportional to TP loading when residence times are greater than 4 days. The average TP retention in sediments (associated wetlands and streams combined) was estimated to be 14% of the inflowing TP load. Alexander et al, 2008 found that the TP mass-transfer removal rate for streams in the Mississippi River Basin of 12 m yr1 is one-third of that estimated for reservoirs (34 m yr1), a plausible finding given that long-term particulate burial and floodplain storage is likely to be less in lotic ecosystems than in reservoirs. They found that the rate of nutrient removal declines in streams with increases in water depth and stream size and decreases in reservoirs with increases in the water flushing rate. They reported that lower river flows and longer river distances enhanced in-stream removal of TP. They reported that reservoirs cause local- and regional-scale differences in phosphorus delivery as compared to nitrogen, especially in the Tennessee Basin. They state that this is because reservoirs have a 10-fold higher phosphorus loss-rate coefficient as compared to that for nitrogen. The EPA publication "Book II Streams and Rivers; Chapter 2 Nutrient Eutrophication Impacts" states that while the net sedimentation of TN and TP in shallow and turbulent rivers and streams may be insignificant, slow moving rivers and streams may demonstrate significant TP removal rates. Based on results published by Baker et al 1981, from the National Eutrophication Survey Database for 101 Florida lakes the percent phosphorus attenuation in Florida lakes ranged from 5% to about 90%, depending on the morphology, hydrology, hydraulics, aquatic vegetation, and etc of individual lakes. Taken together with the conclusions from the studies cited above, that streams typically attenuate about 1/3 of the phosphorus that lakes can attenuate, leads to a general conclusion that the percent stream phosphorus attenuation could range from about 2% to 30% of the total inflowing TP load. 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.010

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Question:

• Need to comment on "preset" values for "percent contribution from stream flow" and "hydraulic retention time" FDEP Response: The data from lakes in the Kissimmee Chain indicate percent contribution from stream flow can range between 6 and 90 %. Selecting a fixed number such as 50% as a preset will underestimate the contribution ~50% of the time and over estimate it ~50%. Similarly, hydraulic retention time varies from 0.026 years to 2.6 years and using a fixed preset of 0.2 years would result in incorrectly allowing a higher loading (presumed lower retention time) about 50% of the time.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3685Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Additionally, Jones and Lee 1982, indicate that use of average hydraulic residence times in lakes with seasonally variable depths is not appropriate. 

# Comment ID 1695-1.001.007

Author Name: Wiley N. Organization: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Downstream Protection of Lakes: The FWC has concerns over implementation of the proposed criteria for the protection of downstream lakes. Foremost are issues raised by DEP in its January 26th "Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Downstream Lakes" concerning technical weaknesses in the application of the Vollenweider-derived model for calculating criteria. Furthermore, the EPA-derived model estimates total TP loading to a lake for a single inlet stream, whereas in reality multiple inlet streams commonly occur as well as additional loadings from nearshore surface runoff, direct precipitation, and groundwater. Given these uncertainties, the FWC believes EPA should reassess this approach. We believe that acceptance of DEP's "Benchmark Distribution Approach" methodology to establish stream criteria is protective of the stream itself, and should be protective of downstream water bodies. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.006

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 5. The DPVs derived for Estuaries and Lakes have significant issues and the analyses either need to be redone or not promulgated at this time (EPAs determination not to promulgate DPVs for estuaries is acknowledged, a similar determination needs to be made for the lake DPVs). More detailed comments are provided below on these issues. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.037

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Streams [Section III.C(6)(a)] - Lake DPVs
1. The use of the Vollenveider model to determine Downstream Protective Values is inappropriate for FL lake and stream systems. The model doesn't have predictive capacity for the systems under consideration and its application is inappropriate.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3686Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.038

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 2. Unless EPA can come up with a scientifically defensible DPV approach, a narrative standard may be more appropriate until it is observed that streams meeting their use using IPV are causing an impaired condition in downstream lakes. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.039

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 3. The response of lakes to upstream loadings varies significantly throughout the State. Additionally, in-lake loading/recycling processes can often govern the lake conditions. The use of a single, highly simplified relationship in the determination of upstream concentrations does not account for these complexities. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.040

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 4. The extension of the DPV values to all waters upstream of lakes, regardless of hydrology, local conditions, and distance upstream is not realistic and does not account for numerous local processes that may impact downstream propagation of nutrients. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.041

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 5. EPA made assumptions on the residence times and percent flow delivered to lakes to develop statewide DPV values. The assumptions are not applicable to all Florida Lakes uniformly, in reality these values vary widely. The inclusion of such assumptions, along with the use of the simplified Vollenveider model is not realistic and should be eliminated. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.042

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3687Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 6. The Lake DPV values do not account for regional known issues associated with TP such as is found within the Bone Valley. Due to these conditions there are lakes where TN is the limiting nutrient. The DPVs for example for clear streams within the Bone Valley, would prescribe a TP value of 0.12 mg/L for Colored Lakes and a TP value of 0.073 mg/L for Clear Lakes. Contrasting this with the Bone Valley IPV taken from reference streams of 0.739 mg/L clearly indicates a problem of the DPV values if applied within many portions of Hillsborough County.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3688Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.043

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 7. It appears that the EPA calculation that reports the DPV as 0.12 mg/L did not take the square root of the lakes hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criteria than if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.045

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 9. At this time it is recommended that no DPV values be promulgated unless a more reasonable method is proposed and it has been adequately noticed and commented upon under separate timeframe. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.137

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Statement: EPA derived the following equation to relate a protective lake criterion to a corresponding protective stream concentration: Original comment letter contains an equation from the FR notice relating a protective lake criterion to a corresponding stream concentration. See original comment letter. Comment: The original Vollenweider expression (Vollenweider, 1975) is a basic mass balance model that simply settles the phosphorus loaded to the lake using a settling rate value and the lake's retention time. This simplistic approach does not account for numerous factors that impact Florida's lakes through internal processes. Additionally, some Florida Lakes (i.e. within St. Johns River) have very complex hydrology due to their low slopes, backwater effects, and wind driven forcings, this will significantly alter their residence times through various years. Additionally, the application of the criteria to all areas upstream of the receiving water does not account for numerous processes that can impact loadings to a specified waterbody and will most likely be overprotective of waters well

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3689Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams upstream of receiving waters. Another key aspect missing from the DPV evaluation for lakes is the understanding of regional conditions that will impact instream TP concentrations, for example in the Bone Valley. As was pointed out for the lakes criteria, the colored and clear lake demarcations do not account for the regional soil contributions to phosphorus nor the potential for nitrogen limitation to drive upstream protective values, this needs to be accounted for in the DPV determination as it needs to be accounted for in the lakes criteria. 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.023

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa D. Lake Downstream Protection Values In establishing the DPV for lakes, the residence time was arbitrarily set to 2.5 months which is a gross simplification that may not pertain to any individual lake in Florida, yet be accurate as an average of all lakes. This becomes problematic when it comes time for each individual stream which contributes flow to a lake to be evaluated. Additionally, the assumption that 50% of the streamflow from a stream is delivered to the lake is likewise an arbitrary and gross estimation that is likely not relevant to any particular lake. The EPA recognized in its Technical Support Document that "only 20% of over 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them at all." Given this finding, it is arbitrary for the EPA to conclude that for lakes that have streamflow it constitutes 50% of the total volume. Also, the EPA discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading ofTP in some Florida lakes. Despite these concerns with the EPA's assumptions, we attempted to confirm EPA calculations based on their example for colored lakes and the modified Vollenweider formula. A complete discussion of this exercise is discussed in the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix A. Based on the results of this exercise, we concluded the EPA calculation that reports the DPV as 0.12 mg/L did not take the square root of the lakes hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criteria than if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately. We believe the equation should be adjusted to account for these errors. Additionally, EPA has specifically allowed for the generation of site-specific downstream protective values for streams that deliver flow into Florida lakes and it is recommended that site specific information on the proportion of streamflow delivered, retention times, and the contribution and exchange of groundwater in these lakes be considered prior to implementing any listing process based on the downstream protective values. Finally, EPA's failure to set proper ecoregions and separation of lakes from streams results in much stricter criteria for lakes than streams. For example, the St. Johns River is located in the Peninsula Ecoregion and therefore is subject to instream protective values of 1.205 mg/L 1N and 0.107 mg/L TP. However, Lake Monroe, a colored alkaline lake, which is part of the St. Johns River system, is required to meet baseline criteria of 1.23 mg/L 1N and 0.050 mg/L TP, so that the lake TP criterion is more than twice as restrictive as the instream protective value. We recommend the EPA readdress the lake criteria and base it on ecoregions similar to streams in the same system.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3690Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1770-1.001.047

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City D. Lake Downstream Protection Values In establishing the DPV for lakes, the residence time was arbitrarily set to 2.5 months which is a gross simplification that may not pertain to any individual lake in Florida, yet be accurate as an average of all lakes. This becomes problematic when it comes time for each individual stream Which contributes flow to a lake to be evaluated. Additionally, the assumption that 50% of the streamflow from a stream is delivered to the lake is likewise an arbitrary and gross estimation that is likely not relevant to any particular lake. The EPA recognized in its Technical Support Document that "only 20% of over 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them at all." Given this finding, it is arbitrary for the EPA to conclude that for lakes that have streamflow it constitutes 50% of the total volume. Also, the EPA discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. Despite these concerns with the EPA's assumptions, we attempted to confirm EPA calculations based on their example for colored lakes and the modified Vollenweider formula. A complete discussion of this exercise is discussed in the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix A. Based on the results of this exercise, we concluded the EPA calculation that reports the DPV as 0.12 mgIL did not take the square root of the lakes hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criteria than if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately. We believe the equation should be adjusted to account for these errors. Additionally, EPA has specifically allowed for the generation of site-specific downstream protective values for streams that deliver flow into Florida lakes and it is recommended that site specific information on the proportion of streamflow delivered, retention times, and the contribution and exchange of groundwater in these lakes be considered prior to implementing any listing process based on the downstream protective values. Finally, EPA's failure to set proper ecoregions and separation of lakes from streams results in much stricter criteria for lakes than streams. For example, the St. Johns River is located in the Peninsula Ecoregion and therefore is subject to instream protective values of 1.205 mg/L TN and 0.107 mg/L TP. However, Lake Monroe, a colored alkaline lake, which is part of the St. Johns River system, is required to meet baseline criteria of 1.23 mg/L TN and 0.050 mglL TP, so that the lake TP criterion is more than twice as restrictive as the instrearn protective value. We recommend the EPA readdress the lake criteria and base it on ecoregions similar to streams in the same system. For a complete discussion regarding Plant City's technical comments on the lake DPVs in the Proposed Rule, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". We recommend the EPA readdress the lake criteria and base it on ecoregions similar to streams in the same system. 

# Comment ID 1771-1.001.057

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3691Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County D. Lake Downstream Protection Values In establishing the DPV for lakes, the residence time was arbitrarily set to 2.5 months which is a gross simplification that may not pertain to any individual lake in Florida, yet be accurate as an average of all lakes. This becomes problematic when it comes time for each individual stream which contributes flow to a lake to be evaluated. Additionally, the assumption that 50% of the streamflow from a stream is delivered to the lake is likewise an arbitrary and gross estimation that is likely not relevant to any particular lake. The EPA recognized in its Technical Support Document that "only 20% of over 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them at all." Given this finding, it is arbitrary for the EPA to conclude that for lakes that have streamflow it constitutes 50% of the total volume. Also, the EPA discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. Despite these concerns with the EPA's assumptions, we attempted to confirm EPA calculations based on their example for colored lakes and the modified Vollenweider formula. A complete discussion of this exercise is discussed in the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix A. Based on the results of this exercise, we concluded the EPA calculation that reports the DPV as 0.12 mg/L did not take the square root of the lakes hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criteria than if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately. We believe the equation should be adjusted to account for these errors. Additionally, EPA has specifically allowed for the generation of site-specific downstream protective values for streams that deliver flow into Florida lakes and it is recommended that site specific information on the proportion of streamflow delivered, retention times, and the contribution and exchange of groundwater in these lakes be considered prior to implementing any listing process based on the downstream protective values. Finally, EPA's failure to set proper ecoregions and separation of lakes from streams results in much stricter criteria for lakes than streams. For example, the St. Johns River is located in the Peninsula Ecoregion and therefore is subject to instream protective values of 1.205 mg/L TN and 0.107 mg/L TP. However, Lake Monroe, a colored alkaline lake, which is part of the St. Johns River system, is required to meet baseline criteria of 1.23 mg/L TN and 0.050 mg/L TP, so that the lake TP criterion is more than twice as restrictive as the instream protective value. We recommend the EPA readdress the lake criteria and base it on ecoregions similar to streams in the same system. For a complete discussion regarding Seminole County's technical comments on the lake DPVs in the Proposed Rule, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.051

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 2-3692Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

D. Lake Downstream Protection Values In establishing the DPV for lakes, the residence time was arbitrarily set to 2.5 months which is a gross simplification that may not pertain to any individual lake in Florida, yet be accurate as an average of all lakes. This becomes problematic when it comes time for each individual stream which contributes flow to a lake to be evaluated. Additionally, the assumption that 50% of the streamflow from a stream is delivered to the lake is likewise an arbitrary and gross estimation that is likely not relevant to any particular lake. The EPA recognized in its Technical Support Document that "only 20% of over 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them at all." Given this finding, it is arbitrary for the EPA to conclude that for lakes that have streamflow it constitutes 50% of the total volume. Also, the EPA discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. Despite these concerns with the EPA's assumptions, we attempted to confirm EPA calculations based on their example for colored lakes and the modified Vollenweider formula. A complete discussion of this exercise is discussed in the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix A. Based on the results of this exercise, we concluded the EPA calculation that reports the DPV as 0.12 mg/L did not take the square root of the lakes hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criteria than if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately. We believe the equation should be adjusted to account for these errors. Additionally, EPA has specifically allowed for the generation of site-specific downstream protective values for streams that deliver flow into Florida lakes and it is recommended that site specific information on the proportion of streamflow delivered, retention times, and the contribution and exchange of groundwater in these lakes be considered prior to implementing any listing process based on the downstream protective values. Finally, EPA's failure to set proper ecoregions and separation of lakes from streams results in much stricter criteria for lakes than streams. For example, the St. Johns River is located in the Peninsula Ecoregion and therefore is subject to instream protective values of 1.205 mg/L TN and 0.107 mg/L TP. However, Lake Monroe, a colored alkaline lake, which is part of the St. Johns River system, is required to meet baseline criteria of 1.23 mg/L TN and 0.050 mg/L TP, so that the lake TP criterion is more than twice as restrictive as the instream protective value. We recommend the EPA readdress the lake criteria and base it on ecoregions similar to streams in the same system. For a complete discussion regarding Titusville's technical comments on the lake DPVs in the Proposed Rule, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.052

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission D. Lake Downstream Protection Values In establishing the DPV for lakes, the residence time was arbitrarily set to 2.5 months which is a gross simplification that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3693Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams may not pertain to any individual lake in Florida, yet be accurate as an average of all lakes. This becomes problematic when it comes time for each individual stream which contributes flow to a lake to be evaluated. Additionally, the assumption that 50% of the streamflow from a stream is delivered to the lake is likewise an arbitrary and gross estimation that is likely not relevant to any particular lake. The EPA recognized in its Technical Support Document that "only 20% of over 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them at all." Given this finding, it is arbitrary for the EPA to conclude that for lakes that have streamflow it constitutes 50% of the total volume. Also, the EPA discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. Despite these concerns with the EPA's assumptions, we attempted to confirm EPA calculations based on their example for colored lakes and the modified Vollenweider formula. A complete discussion of this exercise is discussed in the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix A. Based on the results of this exercise, we concluded the EPA calculation that reports the DPV as 0.12 mg/L did not take the square root of the lakes hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criteria than if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately. We believe the equation should be adjusted to account for these errors. Additionally, EPA has specifically allowed for the generation of site-specific downstream protective values for streams that deliver flow into Florida lakes and it is recommended that site specific information on the proportion of streamflow delivered, retention times, and the contribution and exchange of groundwater in these lakes be considered prior to implementing any listing process based on the downstream protective values. Finally, EPA's failure to set proper ecoregions and separation of lakes from streams results in much stricter criteria for lakes than streams. For example, the St. Johns River is located in the Peninsula Ecoregion and therefore is subject to instream protective values of 1.205 mg/L TN and 0.107 mg/L TP. However, Lake Monroe, a colored alkaline lake, which is part of the St. Johns River system, is required to meet baseline criteria of 1.23 mg/L TN and 0.050 mg/L TP, so that the lake TP criterion is more than twice as restrictive as the instream protective value. We recommend the EPA readdress the lake criteria and base it on ecoregions similar to streams in the same system. For a complete discussion regarding QUC's technical comments on the lake DPVs in the Proposed Rule, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.013

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 6. Item III.C(6)(a) - Downstream Protection of Lakes. The Agency proposes to use an over 30-year old lake phosphorus methodology by Vollenweider (1975 & 1976) which assumes that rainfall exceeds evaporation (reasonable for Florida) and that external phosphorus loading comes from streams (not valid in Florida due to groundwater and sediment influxes). Indeed, page 95 states "in Florida lakes, rainfall and groundwater sources tend to contribute a large portion of the volume of lake water. In fact, only about 20% of the more than 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them." The applicability of the Vollenweider method is questionable because of these assumptions - it was for this reason that Florida has used Florida-specific lake models for Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation (WQBEL) studies since the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3694Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 1970s's. Also, as mentioned above, the absence of the EPA recommended limiting nutrient concept is noteworthy and limits the validity of this approach. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.014

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 7. Item III.C(6)(a) - Downstream Protection of Lakes. The regulation proposes that for the Vollenweider method, in the absence of site-specific data, the fraction of inflow related to all stream flow should be 50% (i.e., 50% of the lake's influx of water comes from streams) and the residence time is about 2 1/2, months (i.e., Tw = 0.2). EPA acknowledges (see above) that only 20% of Florida lakes have streams flowing into them; if so, how is it representative to use 50% of the influx is stream flow? Also, if 80% of Florida lakes have no stream influx, this implies that the residence time is very long, not very short. Documentation of these choices was not found in the Technical Reference Documents. Also, the Agency did not propose a method for nitrogen control in lakes even though research in recent TMDLs for nutrient impairment in Florida Lakes show that many lakes are nitrogen limited and control of phosphorus does not control algal growth in these lakes. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.005

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 4. The DPVs derived for Estuaries and Lakes have significant issues and the analyses either need to be redone or not promulgated at this time (EPAs determination not to promulgate DPVs for estuaries is acknowledged, a similar determination needs to be made for the lake DPVs). More detailed comments are provided below on these issues. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.020

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Streams [Section III.C(6)(a)] - Lake DPVs 1. The use of the Vollenveider model to determine Downstream Protective Values is inappropriate for FL stream systems. The model doesn't have predictive capacity for the systems under consideration and its application is inappropriate. 2. Unless EPA can come up with a scientifically defensible DPV approach, a narrative standard may be more appropriate until it is observed that streams meeting their use using IPV are causing an impaired condition in downstream lakes.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3695Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.021

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 3. The response of lakes to upstream loadings varies significantly throughout the State. Additionally, in-lake loading/recycling processes can often govern the lake conditions. The use of a single, highly simplified relationship in the determination of upstream concentrations does not account for these complexities. 4. The extension of the DPV values to all waters upstream of lakes, regardless of hydrology, local conditions, and distance upstream is not realistic and does not account for numerous local processes that may impact downstream propagation of Phosphorus. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.022

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 5. EPA made assumptions on the residence times and percent flow delivered to lakes to develop statewide DPV values. The assumptions are not applicable to all Florida Lakes uniformly, in reality these values vary widely. The inclusion of such assumptions, along with the use of the simplified Vollenveider model is not realistic and should be eliminated. 6. The Lake DPV values do not account for known regional issues associated with TP such as are found within the Bone Valley. Due to these conditions, there are lakes where TN is the limiting nutrient. The DPVs for example for clear streams within the Bone Valley, would prescribe a TP value of 0.12 mg/L for Colored Lakes and a TP value of 0.073 mg/L for Clear Lakes. Contrasting this with the Bone Valley IPV taken from reference streams of 0.739 mg/L clearly indicates a problem of the DPV values. If high TP levels exist within areas naturally, then the systems there have equilibrated to them and management to unrealistic levels through application of the DPV values which do not account for regional issues is not appropriate. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.023

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 7. It appears that the EPA calculation that reports the DPV as 0.12 mg/L did not take the square root of the lakes hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criteria than if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.104

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3696Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(6)(a) Downstream Protection of Lakes Statement: EPA is proposing an equation to relate a lake TP concentration criterion to the concentration needed to be met in incoming streams to support the lake criterion. EPA proposes to apply the resulting stream concentration as the applicable criterion for all stream segments upstream of the lake Comment: The use of a modified steady-state expression cannot capture the inherent complexity of relating stream TPconcentrations (spatially and temporally aggregated) to the impact on lake concentrations of TP. Complex system-bysystem modeling exercises may be able to provide managers with some useful values in a case where lake impairment has been shown to be associated with TP and other sources of TP are not significant. However, the method of establishment of the regional stream criteria using a minimally disturbed land use reference stream approach is inherently protective of regional lakes. For example, we would expect that streams with naturally TP values that flow into lakes in the region likely are also naturally high in TP concentrations and have either developed a balanced ecology in a eutrophic state or are extremely nitrogen limited. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.106

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Statement: EPA derived the following equation to relate a protective lake criterion to a corresponding protective stream concentration: [Original comment letter contains equation from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. See original comment letter.] Comment: The original Vollenweider expression (Vollenweider 1975) is a basic mass balance model that simply settles the phosphorus loaded to the lake using a settling rate value and the lake's retention time. The load that doesn't settle or leave the lake remains as the lake's in-water TP concentration. The original expression (rearranged to solve for the lake water column concentration) is shown below. In it, there are four chambers: the TP load coming into the lake, the load leaving the lake, the load that settles to the bottom, and the TP that remains in the water column. The concentration of phosphorus remaining in the lake ([Original comment letter contains equation from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. See original comment letter.]) is equal to the input load ( , g/m3/yr) divided by the sum of the sedimentation rate for phosphorus ([Original comment letter contains equation from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. See original comment letter.]) and the lake's hydraulic residence time ([Original comment letter contains equation from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. See original comment letter.]) (both in years).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3697Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

[Original comment letter contains equation from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. See original comment letter.] Because there is no readily available specific settling rate for phosphorus, Vollenweider developed a relationshipbetween that settling rate and lake depth that is roughly approximated as (Vollenweider 1975, 61). Because depth-oflake relationship to phosphorus settling did not hold in many lakes (particularly the US Great Lakes), (Vollenweider, 1976), developed a relationship between the phosphorus settling term, , and residence time [Original comment letter contains equation from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. See original comment letter.]. The EPA's expression uses this substitution in their proposed equation. Additionally, because the EPA needed the stream load to the lake to be expressed as a in-stream concentration, the EPA added a stream flow component to the equation ([Original comment letter contains equation from EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596. See original comment letter.]). For the mass balance of this equation to hold, two assumptions must be maintained: (1) stream flow in cannot be larger than lake outflow and (2) all phosphorus loading must be from the stream. For the first assumption to hold, evaporation from the lake must be mostly balanced or less than the rainfall directly to the lake. Over the long term, evaporation rates and rainfall in Florida are mostly balanced (see (FDEP, 2010a) for a presentation of the data for several stations in the Kissimmee River basin), but on a month-by-month basis or during periods of unusual weather patterns such as extended drought or tropical cyclone activity, it does not hold. Additionally for those lakes with large surface areas versus stream input, the rainfall directly to the lake will in many cases exceed the stream input. The second assumption in its strictest sense is only theoretically possible and likely does not hold for any of Florida's lakes. Broadly interpreting it, however, it would hold if all of the inputs to the lake (i.e., the input from multiple streams, the input from local drainage, the input from ground water, and the input from rainfall) all have similar concentrations of phosphorus. That is, if there are four stream inputs and the streams have different phosphorus concentrations, the equation doesn't hold. If the streams and the immediate lake land uses are sufficiently different to result in different TP concentrations, it doesn't hold. If ground water sources to the lake are significant enough vis-à-vis the stream flow and the TP concentration is higher or lower than stream, it doesn't hold. If a lakes surface area is large relative to the drainage basin, inputs from rainfall and atmospheric TP will most certainly differ from the stream inputs. Additionally, some Florida Lakes (i.e. within St. Johns River) have very complex hydrology due to their low slopes, backwater effects, and wind driven forcings, this will significantly alter their residence times through various years. Additionally, the application of the criteria to all areas upstream of the receiving water does not account for numerous processes that can impact loadings to a specified waterbody and will most likely be overprotective of waters well upstream of receiving waters. Another key aspect missing from the DPV evaluation for lakes is the understanding of regional conditions that will impact instream TP concentrations, for example in the Bone Valley. As was pointed out for the lakes criteria, the colored and clear lake demarcations do not account for the regional soil contributions to phosphorus nor the potential for nitrogen limitation to drive upstream protective values, this needs to be accounted for in the DPV determination as it needs to be accounted for in the lakes criteria. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.147

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3698Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 9. At this time it is recommended that no DPV values be promulgated unless a more reasonable method is proposed and it has been adequately noticed and commented upon under separate timeframe. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.036

Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior Protection of downstream lakes and estuaries The approach to protection of downstream lakes seems like a reasonable place to start. Because Vollenweider's equation is based on responses in individual lakes, EPA's allowance of site-specific standards is an important provision. 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.034

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District 2. Downstream Protective Values (DPVs) Based on Freshwater Lakes EPA proposes to develop DPVs using a Vollenweider model based on receiving lake P concentration, lake hydraulic residence time, and the fraction of inflowdue to all stream flow. The District supports this approach, but only if all three parameters are determined sitespecifically. Using the DPV in this fashion, produces a site-specific numeric nutrient criterion that will protect downstream lakes. Because downstream waters will typically be more sensitive to nutrients than will the inflowing streams, the DPV should also protect in-stream designated uses in most cases. Where stream sensitivity is higher than the receiving waters, the District recommends that this sensitivity should be demonstrated by site-specific data and nutrient concentrations below the DPV should be set, based on these data, as site-specific alternative criteria. In the absence of site-specific values, EPA proposes general values for lake residence time (0.2 y) and fraction of stream flow (0.5). Using these values, all streams flowing into colored lakes (geometric mean TP = 0.050) would have a TP criterion of 0.14 mg L-1 while those flowing into alkaline clear lakes (geometric mean TP = 0.030) would have acriterion of 0.087 mg L-1. This generalized use of the DPV model does not avoid the problems associated with underregulation and over-regulation. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.005

Author Name: Gallagher J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3699Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Pasco County 4. The DPVs derived for Estuaries and Lakes have significant issues and the analyses either need to be redone or not promulgated at this time (EPAs determination not to promulgate DPVs for estuaries is acknowledged, a similar determination needs to be made for the lake DPVs). More detailed comments are provided below on these issues. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.037

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Streams [Section III.C(6)(a)] – Lake DPVs 1.The use of the Vollenveider model to determine Downstream Protective Values is inappropriate for FL stream systems. The model doesn’t have predictive capacity for the systems under consideration and its application is inappropriate. 2.Unless EPA can come up with a scientifically defensible DPV approach, a narrative standard may be more appropriate until it is observed that streams meeting their use using IPV are causing an impaired condition in downstream lakes. 3.The response of lakes to upstream loadings varies significantly throughout the State. Additionally, in-lake loading/recycling processes can often govern the lake conditions. The use of a single, highly simplified relationship in the determination of upstream concentrations does not account for these complexities. 4.The extension of the DPV values to all waters upstream of lakes, regardless of hydrology, local conditions, and distance upstream is not realistic and does not account for numerous local processes that may impact downstream propagation of Phosphorus. 5.EPA made assumptions on the residence times and percent flow delivered to lakes to develop statewide DPV values. The assumptions are not applicable to all Florida Lakes uniformly, in reality these values vary widely. The inclusion of such assumptions, along with the use of the simplified Vollenveider model is not realistic and should be eliminated. 6.The Lake DPV values do not account for known regional issues associated with TP such as are found within the Bone Valley. Due to these conditions, there are lakes where TN is the limiting nutrient. The DPVs for example for clear streams within the Bone Valley, would prescribe a TP value of 0.12 mg/L for Colored Lakes and a TP value of 0.073 mg/L for Clear Lakes. Contrasting this with the Bone Valley IPV taken from reference streams of 0.739 mg/L clearly indicates a problem of the DPV values if applied within portions of Pasco County. If high TP levels exist within areas naturally, then the systems there have equilibrated to them and management to unrealistic levels through application of the DPV values which do not account for regional issues is not appropriate. 7.It appears that the EPA calculation that reports the DPV as 0.12 mg/L did not take the square root of the lakes hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criteria than if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately.



# Comment ID 1805-3.001.039

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3700Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 9. At this time it is recommended that no DPV values be promulgated unless a more reasonable method is proposed and it has been adequately noticed and commented upon under separate timeframe. 

# Comment ID 1834-4.001.027

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 1. Translation of DPVs for Lakes into Tributaries Needs to Consider In-Stream Losses of Phosphorus to not be Overly Protective When EPA initially proposed DPVs for estuaries, in-stream losses of nitrogen were included in the methodology. Results from the SPARROW model were used to estimate the fraction of the nitrogen flux from each tributary that is ultimately delivered to the estuary. This resulted in significantly higher DPVs for tributaries located a long distance from their terminus, compared to tributaries located closer to the estuary. No similar consideration was given when translating DPVs of TP for lakes into their tributaries. Instead, EPA has proposed to apply the DVPs calculated where a tributary enters the lake as the applicable criterion for all stream segments upstream of the lake. This underestimates the loss of phosphorus that occurs between tributaries and lakes, and results in largely overprotective DPVs for tributaries locate a significant distance upstream of the downstream lake. EPA’s Technical Support Document contains no discussion of the consideration of instream losses of phosphorus. The only justification is provided in the proposed rule itself, which states: “The same processes that occur in lakes and affect water phosphorus concentration may also occur in streams that feed lakes and affect stream water phosphorus concentrations. These processes include sorption to stream bed sediments, uptake into biota, and release into the water column from decaying vegetation. EPA took into consideration these processes when deciding whether it would be appropriate to add a term to the model equation to account for phosphorus loss or uptake within the streams in deriving stream criteria for downstream lake protection. However, the net result of these processes is nutrient spiraling, whereby nutrients released upstream gradually propagate downstream at a rate slower than that of the moving water, and cycle into and out of the food chain process. Over the short term, the result may be water concentrations that decrease in the downstream direction. However, unlike for nitrogen, there are no long-term phosphorus net removal processes at work in streams. Phosphorus adsorbed to sediment particles is eventually carried downstream with the sediment, and phosphorus taken up by plants is eventually returned to the following water. Over the long term, upstream phosphorus inputs are in equilibrium with downstream phosphorus outputs.” This justification is flawed. The description of relevant phosphorus processes ignores the significant processes of the settling of particulate phosphorus from the water column to the bed sediments, and ultimate burial of this phosphorus by additional sedimentation. This omission is magnified by the statements: “there are no long-term phosphorus net removal processes at work in streams” and “Over the long term, upstream phosphorus inputs are in equilibrium with downstream phosphorus outputs.” Deep burial of phosphorus is certainly a long-term phosphorus net removal

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3701Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams processes at work in streams, and one that results in downstream phosphorus output being significantly less thanupstream inputs. Since P has accumulated in the bottom sediments of South Florida canals, that would suggest longterm P retention. Diaz and others inventoried P in the EAA/WCA canals, and found that >80% of the stored P was chemically stable (sediment P fractionation techniques). Denitrification processes, especially in the riparian zone, can reduce In-stream TN levels. Long-term in-stream P reductions are mainly through sediment deposition. [xxvii, xxviii]


# Comment ID 1834-4.001.028

Author Name: Bronson C. Organization: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2. Analysis of the Adequacy of Proposed TP criteria for Streams to Protect Downstream Lakes is Based on the Vollenweider 1976 Phosphorus Loading Model, and is Simplistic, Superficial and Scientifically Unimpressive to the Point of the Criteria being Arbitrary Vollenweider’s 1976 model is one of the earliest of the semi-empirical P-loading models developed by limnologists to relate phosphorus loadings to steady-state (average) concentrations of phosphorus in lakes. [xxix] The model was formulated on simple chemical reactor principles, but the basic formula was modified in the 1976 paper into an empirical relationship to fit data on temperate lakes. The types of lakes used to develop the model are different in several important respects from the Florida lakes to which EPA applied the model in the current analysis. First, the lakes used by Vollenweider are relatively large and deep drainage lakes that receive most of their water and nutrient loadings from measureable stream flows. Second, the lakes are in temperate regions of the World and exhibit classic seasonal patterns of nutrient loadings and algal growth responses. Third, the great majority of the lakes were phosphorus-limited, at least in their unimpacted states (in terms of human development). These conditions facilitated the use of simple chemical-reactor principles – treating the lakes as continuous-stirred tank reactors that are at steady-state and completely mixed on an annual basis. Florida lakes, in contrast tend to be shallow, and many of them have only limited amounts of measurable flow from defined streams as their water sources Seasonal cycles are much more nuanced in sub-tropical and warm-temperate Florida lakes. Instead, algal growth can occur nearly year-round, and blooms are better characterized as stochastic temporal variations rather than as simple seasonal cycles. Although the above characteristics do not preclude the development of reactor-based nutrient loading models for Florida lakes, they do mean that models developed for north-temperate lakes should not be applied to Florida lakes without modification to account for these differences. A variety of studies conducted over the past ~30 years have recognized this fact and have described new models or modified models like those of Vollenweider (1975, 1976) to better fit the environmental conditions in Florida. At a minimum, these later analyses showed that the basic Vollenweider and related loading models needed to be calibrated to Florida lakes. This results in the presence of additional (empirical) coefficients in the model formulation. EPA does mention the existence of some of these later models, referencing work by Baker et al. 1985, which is based on an earlier, more extensive report (Baker et al. 1981), Canfield and Bachman 1981, and the important recent paper by Steward and Lowe (2010), however, this is not a thorough list of the later models for Florida lakes. [xxxi,xxxii,xxxiii,xxxiv] Moreover, the documentation provided by EPA did not use any of the more recent models in its analysis. Instead, it relied on the original Vollenweider (1976) formulation. This is an inherently inferior approach.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3702Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Two factors are especially important for any model to accurately simulate the behavior of nutrients (P and N) in Florida lakes and their drainage basins: (i) the model must recognize the complicated nature of loadings into Florida lakes from surrounding terrestrial areas, and (ii) the model must account for recycling of nutrients from bottom sediments. The latter is critically important for large, shallow lakes (e.g., mean depths of 2-3 m or less), which are abundant in Florida. Vollenweider’s model and most of the other models mentioned above do not include recycling from bottom sediments. Vollenweider’s model does not explicitly exclude consideration of external nutrient sources aside from streams, but the idiosyncratic way that EPA applied it assumed that all phosphorus loading to lakes was from stream flow. Brezonik and Pollman described a simple model applicable to Florida lakes that explicitly considered internal phosphorus loading from bottom sediments.[xxxv] There are additional issues related to EPA’s application of the Vollenweider model that are in need of comment. First, although average evaporation (E) is lower than precipitation (P) in Florida (p. 15), the average values actually are fairly comparable, and in dry years, E may be exceed P. Consequently, EPA’s analysis actually may not be valid in such years and any resulting criteria would be arbitrary. Second, assuming that all P comes from streams is an invalid assumption for Florida lakes. Some P is derived from atmospheric deposition (wet and especially dry). For example, direct atmospheric deposition on Lake Okeechobee accounts for 25% of the allowable TP load to the lake under the Lake’s TMDL allocation. [xxxvi] Direct runoff to lakes not from defined stream channels is very important in many lakes, given the sandy soils and lack of surface streams in many areas of Florida. The text acknowledges this (p. 16) with a reference indicating that only 20% of Florida lakes have a stream draining into it, but the analysis is not adequate to take this into account. Even in such cases it is not certain that stream flow represents the dominant nutrient source for the lake. Groundwater may play an important role in some lakes, and this also is not mentioned in the EPA analysis. Third, as mentioned above, bottom recycling from sediments is critically important in shallow lakes (depths of ~2-3 m or less), which are common in Florida. EPA acknowledges the likely importance of internal loading, but the Agency still used the simplistic Vollenweider model. The approaches it recommended to account for internal loading (excluding the loss term or changing its sign) are not scientifically defensible. Limnologists are able to estimate internal P loading with reasonable accuracy using incubations of sediment cores under laboratory conditions. That approach, coupled with a model that includes a specific term for internal loading, should be used if accurate simulations or predictions are desired. Fourth, Lake Jesup is not a good example of a lake with high stream flow, at least insofar as flow from the St. Johns River is concerned. Net flow is from the lake into the St. Johns River; tidal influences, which extend that far up the St. Johns River, do cause some back flow of the river into the northern part of the lake but not on a net basis. Overall, this is a very superficial analysis and is inadequate to develop stream nutrient criteria protective of individual lakes and is therefore arbitrary. The analysis has a “back-of-the-envelope” flavor to it, similar to what one might have seen in the discussion section of a report on the topic from about 20-30 years ago. It is not helpful in defining stream nutrient criteria protective of lakes relative to eutrophication. Many exceptions are likely to the proposed stream criteria that the proposed values essentially are meaningless and, therefore, again are arbitrary.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3703Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1836.001.033

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 22.The calculations USEPA used to derive downstream protection of lakes should account for intrinsic differences in lake nutrient levels that are driven by geographic variability in geology and other naturally occurring factors (page 4198, proposed rule). The suggestion in SWFWMD's Comment 2 to provide regional classifications for lakes is relevant to the Downstream Protection Value (DPV) for lakes. The modified Vollenweider equation referenced does not take into account the Nutrient Watershed Regions and the phosphorus-rich soils and geology of the Bone Valley in the component of the equation that applies to "applicable lake criterion," which is a state-wide criterion (page 4198, proposed rule) . 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.023

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 2.2 Downstream Lakes - Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(2)(ii)
2.2.1 Application of Vollenweider Model The Vollenweider Model is not appropriate for florida lakes as detailed in the comments submitted on behalf of CF by Dr. Don Blancher of Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration., LLC. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.024

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 2.2.2 Conflict with Instream Protection Values As noted above, if indeed EPA adheres to its own regulations as to the protection of downstream waters, there is no need to ratchet down lake criteria or stream criteria to protect downstream lakes. If indeed the lake criteria and upstream IPVs are protective, there is no scientific or statistical basis for EPA's application of the Vollenweider Model or any other model to ensure protection of downstream waters. In effect, EPA is attempting to establish regional TMDLs as water quality standards as part of this proposal. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.055

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3704Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 5. Use of the Vollenweider model in the USEPA's analysis of downstream protective values (DPV) for lakes is overly simplistic and totally inappropriate for use in Florida systems for the following reasons: i. It does not work in wetland, and groundwater dominated lakes; ii. It does not work in lakes with extensive macrophytic growth; iii. Its empirical expressions were not derived for Florida systems; iv. Decades of Florida limnological studies show there are better models available. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.082

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Proposed Downstream Protection for Lakes Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(2)(ii) The USEPA developed downstream protective values for lakes based on the Vollenweider (1976) relationship, which was developed for temperate lakes. Overall, we found the analysis presented by USEPA to be simplistic, superficial and not scientifically robust. The model has numerous shortcomings for application for Florida systems which have been pointed out by many authors in the past. The primary issues are that the original relationship was developed for temperate lakes that generally are large and deep (thermally stratified), and it uses critical loading criteria based in part on faulty chlorophyll a regressions. The lake DPVs based on the Vollenweider model are not appropriate for use in Florida because of the following limitations.
1. Vollenweider's (1976) model is based on assumptions that are not valid for many Florida Lakes. These assumptions are: totally mixed tank reactor; lake concentration is equal to outflow concentration; and the system is at steady state. It also assumes that the major primary producers in the system are planktonic algae and that there is a proportional biomass response, expressed as chlorophyll a, to nutrient loading. These assumptions are not true for a large number of Florida lakes. The relationship does not work in macrophyte dominated lakes or in shallow wind mixed lakes which are common in Florida. Of particular note is the fact that many of the Florida systems are dominated by macrophytes. The Vollenweider approach cannot address nutrient issues in these systems. Use of phosphorus models in macrophyte dominated lakes has demonstrated that algal response of the macrophyte dominated systems is more related to external loads then from the non-reactive phytins (likely inositol polyphosphates - structural components in cell walls) which do not stimulate plant growth since algal enzymes such as alkaline phosphatase cannot cleave multi-phosphate bonds. For example, in constructing a mechanistic model for phosphorus for Lake Conway, in Orange County Florida, a chain of fused mesotrophic dolines with macrophytes covering approximately 50% of the surface area, Blancher (1979, 1980) found that until internal loading of total phosphorus from macrophytes was accounted for, the model could not explain the level of phosphorus from external sources alone (Figure 9). In fact, the level of total phosphorus loading from macrophytes to balance the model

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3705Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 10. Simulation of Total Phosphorus in Lake Conway Florida illustrating the impact of phosphorus loading from macrophytes. (Blancher, 1979). See original comment letter. comprised 75% of the total load (0.66 g m-2 y(1 for internal vs. 0.22 g m·2 {1 from external loading). More importantly, the trophic response of the lake was not related to total phosphorus concentrations because much of the total particulate phosphorus was tied up in structural plant components that could not be used directly for phytoplankton growth (Figure 10). Thus, a serious problem with Vollenweider's approach, as demonstrated in Lak.e Conway, is that it cannot be used to predict average phosphorus concentrations in Florida systems dominated by macrophytes. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 11. Response of trophic state indicator (TSI(sd)) in Lake Conway, Florida, responded to external load of nutrients and not lake TP concentration. (Source: Blancher 1979). See original comment letter. The above findings have serious implications for the development of numeric nutrient criteria. The trophic response, in this case chlorophyll a, especially in lakes with significant macrophyte populations, responds to external load but has no relationship to the total phosphorus in the lake. Thus, there is no relationship between the response variable (chlorophyll a) and total phosphorus, invalidating any numeric nutrient criteria based on total phosphorus concentrations. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0702.001.001, 1761-3.001.006, 1777-2.001.005, 1805-3.001.005 Response: Thank you for your comments. See below and responses to comment code III.C.6.

Comment ID: 1673-1.001.001 Response: EPA disagrees with comments that DPVs are “an artificial construct”, are not legally necessary, or that EPA is not scientifically justified in pursuing protection of downstream waters through the approaches described in the Agency’s Supplemental Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (SNODA). 40 CFR 131.10(b) provides that water quality criteria shall provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters. EPA’s review of the scientific literature led the Agency to conclude that the source of many adverse water quality impacts can be traced to degradation of water quality upstream of the impacted aquatic system (e.g., U.S. EPA SAB 2007, Paerl, H.W. 2009, Conley et al. 2009). These studies also support water quality management of both nitrogen and phosphorus. EPA also disagrees with commenters who assert that DPVs are not necessary because EPA’s stream criteria protect streams upstream of lakes at a level associated with “minimally-impacted” or natural conditions. Such assertions must assume that EPA’s

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3706Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams stream criteria approach was based on identifying “minimally-impacted” or natural stream references sites. EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. EPA’s investigation of FDEP’s original benchmark site population indicate that population contained a substantial amount of human disturbance. In determining its benchmarks reference set, FDEP considered human caused land disturbance only in a corridor adjacent to and upstream of candidate sites. Beyond that corridor (100 meters distance from stream banks and 10 km radius upstream), EPA discovered substantial levels of development in many of the FDEP reference watersheds, based on review of watershed GIS information as well as aerial photographs. Moreover, EPA discovered several of the sites were included on the State’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for various causes, including some for nutrient and dissolved oxygen impairment. Therefore, the conclusion that FDEP’s stream reference sites represented a “pristine” condition that might be deemed impaired is not supported by the evidence. For the final rule, EPA is using a modified version of the benchmark approach developed by FDEP in the Panhandle West, Panhandle East, North Central, and Peninsula Regions. This modified benchmark approach adds to the original screening process additional screens based on watershed land cover, 303(d) impairment, and biological condition.

U.S. EPA 2007. Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Update by the EPA Science Advisory Board. EPA Science Advisory Board, Washington, D.C. EPA-SAB-08-003. Paerl, H.W. 2009. Controlling Eutrophication along the Freshwater-Marine Continuum: Dual Nutrient (N and P) Reductions are Essential. Estuaries and Coasts. 32:593-601. Conley, D.J., H. W. Paerl, R.W. Howarth, D. F. Boesch, S.P. Seitzinger, K.E. Havens, C. Lancelot, G.E. Likens. 2009. Controlling Eutrophication: Nitrogen and Phosphorus. Science. 323:1014-1015.

Comment IDs: 1431-1.001.031, 1474-1.001.145, 1673-1.001.001, 1777-2.001.104, 2233-1.001.024 Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA agrees that in most cases truly natural conditions should not be considered impaired, and that receiving waters in a completely undisturbed watershed would be adapted to the nutrient loads entering them. But EPA found no evidence that “pristine” or “natural” conditions existed in the FDEP reference site population for deriving stream criteria. To the contrary, EPA found numerous impacts stemming from human activity on the landscape, groundwater, and atmosphere that have made the existence of “pristine” conditions rare if at all present in Florida. The reference populations used by EPA for criteria derivation represent populations of least-disturbed sites, not populations of “pristine” sites. It may seem reasonable to assume that regional stream criteria, derived from benchmark sites, are protective of lake conditions. EPA does not believe that assumption has been demonstrated to be true. First, the criteria are derived from the 90th percentile of the benchmark stream distribution, so we know that almost 90% of benchmark streams have nutrient concentrations less than, not at, the criteria values. Some are well below. As an example, suppose a stream in the North Central stream nutrient region has a nutrient concentration at the 10th percentile of the regional benchmark distribution (e.g., 0.05 mg/L TP). Increasing the stream’s TP to the criterion limit (the 90th percentile; 0.35 mg/L TP in North Central) is a seven-fold increase. Without calculated DPVs, a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3707Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams downstream lake could thus be allowed to receive up to a seven-fold increase in TP loading, which would almost certainly have a deleterious effect on the lake. This effect can be magnified, since EPA’s criteria for lakes are, in some cases, more stringent than the final criteria for streams that flow into the lakes, and thus the instream criteria may not be stringent enough to ensure protection of WQS in certain downstream lakes. Even scientifically-derived boundaries of the stream nutrient regions are artificial: the boundaries are created for implementation of criteria and management, but we recognize that they divide continuous nature into fixed categories. We also recognize that the boundaries were developed based on real, imperfect information available at the time - new data may reveal the necessity for new categories, or shifting of boundaries. Streams meeting regional criteria may cause downstream impairment simply because it is not possible to devise a perfect classification based on real, imperfect data. Finally, there are other sources of nutrients (sheet flow runoff, groundwater, internal P loading) that are accounted for in a DPV development or a TMDL, but would negate the assumption that lakes receiving flow from streams meeting criteria automatically also meet their criteria.

Comment IDs: 1431-1.001.029, 1761-3.001.042, 1761-3.001.137, 1474-1.001.133, 1777-2.001.022, 1836.001.033) Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA recognizes that its classification systems for lakes and streams were based on the models that best explain existing data; nevertheless, there remains local variation unexplained in the models. The criteria allow for local variation and site-specific local conditions through the use of the modified criteria, and through the use of site-specific alternative criteria (SSACs). DPVs would need to be derived from the final criteria for a lake, whether those are baseline, modified, or site-specific alternative criteria. Developing a SSAC for a lake may be appropriate when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. EPA refers the commenter to the preamble of the final rule which discusses the federal site-specific alternative criteria process, in particular section V.C Site-Specific Alternative Criteria, which explains a specific procedure, finalized in federal rule, for EPA adoption of sitespecific alternative criteria (SSAC). EPA provides clarification on the roles and responsibilities of the Agency and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in administering this procedure, clarification regarding FDEP’s current regulatory SSAC process and how this process differs from EPA’s federal SSAC procedure, and the Agency’s authority to enact this procedure. EPA also provides additional guidance for a federal SSAC submittal. EPA notes that FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own rulemaking process at any time to establish a state SSAC process for nutrients, or other regulatory relief mechanisms, and may submit such mechanisms to EPA for review under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act.

Comment ID: 1474-1.001.089 Response: Thank you for your comment. Lake classification was based on color, which is highly correlated with wetlands; therefore the influence of wetlands is indirectly included in the criteria. Wetlands can intercept nutrient loads that happen to flow through the wetlands, as well as contribute to denitrification. The result is that measured nutrient concentrations in lakes with wetlands may be lower than in otherwise equivalent lakes with no wetlands. Thus, wetlands may reduce the nutrient load on a lake, but they would not have an effect on the in-lake protective value (the nutrient criteria).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3708Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Comment IDs: 1473-1.001.038, 1474-1.001.013, 1474-1.001.136 Response: Thank you for your comment. Sources of nutrient loading include inflowing streams, groundwater, direct runoff into a lake, and other sources. DPVs are designed specifically to address the first case. Lakes with stream inputs only would be expected to have worse water quality if the upstream watershed contributed increased nutrients to a lake, the case for which DPVs are designed to address.

Comment ID: 1009.001.009, 1615-1.001.014 Response: Thank you for your comment. DPVs are intended to protect downstream lakes from nutrient loads carried by streams that flow into those lakes; where there is no stream inflow to a lake there is no need for derivation of a DPV. Accordingly, EPA estimates that only about 20% of Florida lakes will require associated DPVs.

Comment IDs: 1474-1.001.144, 1474-1.001.136, 2233-1.001.024 Response: Thank you for your comment. The TMDL process is intended to determine the loads necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. One of the purposes in undertaking the rulemaking is to set the numeric WQC so that the targets do not have to be set individually for each TMDL. TMDLs are generally developed on waters that are already impaired; one of the purposes of WQS is to prevent waters from becoming impaired in the first place. WQS are required for all waters, not just impaired waters. Calculation of DPVs creates the nutrient budgets before the lake is impaired (pursuant to what the regulations tell states to do) so as to prevent impairment and a TMDL. The advantage of doing the calculations on the front end to determine applicable criteria (IPVs or DPVs) has been expressed as EPA policy per the Grumbles memo (2007) (see preamble for full Grumbles 2007 citation). •� easier and faster development of TMDLs; •� quantitative targets to support trading programs; •� easier to write protective NPDES permits; •� increased effectiveness in evaluating success of nutrient runoff minimization programs; •� measurable, objective water quality baselines against which to measure environmental progress. Translating the narrative during the WQ criteria development process can save time, effort, resources later when a permit writer does it (which often times they don't because there is no numeric criterion in the first place), or later when, unfortunately, the water is found to be impaired and in need of a TMDL.

Comment IDs: 1777-2.001.147, 1805-3.001.039 Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA’s August 2010 supplemental notice requested comment on using the BATHTUB

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3709Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes (downstream protection values or DPVs), allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available. EPA has decided not to use the Vollenweider equation for deriving DPVs. EPA has finalized an approach that provides several options for setting DPVs at the pour point, where waters from inflowing streams enter a lake. Where sufficient data and information are available, DPVs can be established using BATHTUB, which can represent site-specific conditions relevant to a particular lake (such as streamflow and groundwater contributions to a lake, and differences in retention times). The rule also specifically allows FDEP or EPA to determine that use of another scientifically defensible modeling approach will result in the protection of downstream lakes. Where sufficient data and information are not available to apply a modeling approach, the rule specifies other approaches based on whether the downstream lake is attaining the lake criteria or whether the downstream is either not assessed or is impaired. (see final rule and preamble).

Comment IDs: 1671-1.001.008, 1673-1.001.005, 1761-3.001.137, 1834-4.001.027 Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA disagrees with the argument that there is no long-term P retention in streams applies to flowing streams, not to canals or lakes. One commenter referred specifically to South Florida canals, which act more like lakes in this regard (EPA will propose numeric nutrient criteria for South Florida flowing waters by November 14, 2011. ). A stream can be a permanent P sink only if there is permanent, net sediment deposition, as would occur in a lake or reservoir. None of the comments provided data or evidence on permanent stream sediment deposition in Florida. Canal, lakes, and reservoirs do act as permanent P sinks.

Comment IDs: 1761-3.001.040, 1777-2.001.021, 1777-2.001.106 Response: Thank you for your comment. In the final rule, the DPV for a lake applies at the pour point, the point at which an inflowing stream enters a lake. Nutrient loads in the watershed upstream of the pour point can be allocated based on local watershed characteristics and sources to achieve nutrient concentrations or loads specified at the pour point.

Comment ID: 1476-2.001.039 Response: Thank you for your comment. The relevant criteria for streams flowing out of lakes would be the stream criterion for that region. In cases in which the natural concentrations of TN or TP can be shown to be greater than the applicable criteria, the SSAC process provides a means of adjusting these criteria.

Comment ID: 1801-1.001.034

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3710Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Response: Thank you for your comment. In general, the relevant stream criterion is the lesser (more stringent) of the regional IPV or the calculated DPV for a lake downstream, if any. This provision covers the cited situation where streams may be more sensitive than the DPV, based on the regional IPV values for the stream.

Comment ID: 0890.001.002 Response: Thank you for your comment. DPVs can be expressed as concentrations or loads, and when expressed as loads, the contribution of an individual storm event is considered in the context of all loading that has occurred during a particular year. Lake Okeechobee has a TMDL which makes individual per-stream load allocations. Implementation processes for permits, stormwater programs, etc., are not changed by this rule.

Comment IDs: 1128.001.010, 1261-1.001.012, 0890.001.002, 0922-1.001.028, 0922-1.001.038, 1009.001.009, 1009.001.010, 1135.001.006, 1261-1.001.013, 1352-1.001.053, 1352-1.001.054, 1352-1.001.055, 1353-1.001.007, 1355-2.001.016, 1355­ 2.001.018, 1362-1.001.010, 1434-1.001.025, 1473-1.001.038, 1474-1.001.013, 1474-1.001.087, 1474-1.001.134, 1474-1.001.135, 1474-1.001.140, 1474-1.001.143, 1481-1.001.026, 1615-1.001.014, 1671-1.001.008, 1673-1.001.001, 1673-1.001.002, 1673­ 1.001.004, 1673-1.001.005, 1673-1.001.010, 1695-1.001.007, 1761-3.001.037, 1761-3.001.038, 1761-3.001.039, 1761-3.001.041, 1761-3.001.043, 1761-3.001.045, 1761-3.001.137, 1769-1.001.023, 1770-1.001.047, 1771-1.001.057, 1772-1.001.051, 1773­ 1.001.052, 1794-1.001.036,1774-1.001.013, 1774-1.001.014, 1777-2.001.020, 1777-2.001.021, 1777-2.001.022, 1777-2.001.023, 1777-2.001.104, 1777-2.001.106, 1801-1.001.034, 1805-3.001.037, 1834-4.001.028, 2233-1.001.023, 2233-1.001.055, 2233­ 1.001.082

Response: Thank you for your comments. EPA received numerous comments on the Vollenweider approach, including:

• �Vollenweider has too many deficiencies and simplifying assumptions, leading to excessive error

• �General deficiency and multiple assumptions

• �Streams are assumed to be the same concentration

• �Other sources of P besides streams need to be considered (e.g., groundwater, atmospheric deposition, internal recycling from sediments, resuspension)

• �Rainfall exceeds evaporation on an annual scale but not seasonally

• �Perceived absence of the limiting nutrient concept

• �The Vollenweider model only covered TP, yet some lakes are N limited

• �The Vollenweider model was derived from deeper temperate lakes

• �Default assumptions in absence of site-specific data may be unrealistic (Cf, retention time)

• �watershed size of the lake was not considered

• �Vollenweider may not be valid where macrophytes dominate lake; macrophytes are especially controlled by internal P loading

• �Alleged error in example calculation

• �Frequency and duration for the DPV derived using the model (i.e., Vollen) should be the same duration and frequency as the IPV

• �Timing of loadings may be more important with regard to algal response than total amount, especially in short residence time lakes

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3711Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

• �FDEP provided comparison with TMDLs for 6 lakes, which indicated the Vollenweider model is not protective enough, e.g., for Lake Okeechobee

• �Vollenweider model lacks site-specificity

• �Vollenweider model needs peer review The January 2010 proposed use of the Vollenweider model equation to ensure the protection of downstream lakes requires input of two lake-specific characteristics: the fraction of inflow due to streamflow and the hydraulic retention time. Because lake-specific input values may not always be readily available, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from streamflow and hydraulic retention time that could be used in those instances. EPA’s January 2010 proposed rule discussed the flexibility for the State to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for these two parameters, as long as the State determines that such inputs are appropriate and documents the site-specific values. Some commenters felt that that the Vollenweider equation was overly simplistic and that it does not include the necessary factors to account for physical, hydrologic, chemical, and biological processes necessary to determine protective criteria. Several commenters also suggested the need for TN values to protect downstream lakes that are nitrogen-limited (such as many of the lakes in the phosphorus-rich areas of the State). Comments included a recommendation to use models that can better represent site-specific conditions, such as BATHTUB, which EPA is finalizing in this rule. EPA’s August 2010 supplemental notice requested comment on using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes (downstream protection values or DPVs), allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available. EPA has decided not to use the Vollenweider equation for deriving DPVs. EPA has finalized an approach that provides several options for setting DPVs at the pour point, where waters from inflowing streams enter a lake. Where sufficient data and information are available, DPVs can be established using BATHTUB, which can represent site-specific conditions relevant to a particular lake (such as streamflow and groundwater contributions to a lake, and differences in retention times). The rule also specifically allows FDEP or EPA to determine that use of another scientifically defensible modeling approach will result in the protection of downstream lakes. BATHTUB and other scientifically defensible models allow calibration based on site-specific characteristics of a lake, including settling and resuspension, retention times, and different sources of loading. WASP further provides temporal resolution so that the effects of the timing of loading can be incorporated if these effects are regarded as important. Where sufficient data and information are not available to apply a modeling approach, the rule specifies other approaches based on whether the downstream lake is attaining the lake criteria or whether the downstream is either not assessed or is impaired. (see final rule and preamble). The frequency and duration of the DPVs are the same as those specified for the lake, namely that the concentration magnitude expressed as an annual average concentration shall not be exceeded more than once every three years. In the case of a DPV that is expressed as a load, the frequency component is the same: the DPV annual load shall not be exceeded more than once every three years. 

# III.C.6.Q.2 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3712Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# ESTUARIES QUESTION 2 Comment ID 0588.001.006

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County EPA's method to establish stream criteria for Protection of Downstream Lakes is too simplistic

- Equation is too simplistic as it does not include settling terms or other sources of nutrients to lakes like groundwater and atmospheric deposition 

# Comment ID 0933.001.001

Author Name: Collins J. Organization: Below are comments on proposed EPA rule on nutrients in FL waters.
1. Quote from your document on page 4198................In Florida lakes, rainfall and groundwater sources tend to contribute a large portion of the total volume of lake water. In fact, only about 20% of the more than 7,000 Florida lakes have a stream flowing into them, \71\ with the rest entirely comprised of groundwater and rainwater sources.



# Comment ID 1217-2.001.054

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC b. Downstream Protective Values for Lakes EPA proposes setting criteria in addition to the IPVs to ensure that the criteria for streams protect the designated uses of lakes receiving water from incoming streams. EPA's proposed methodology for deriving these lake DPVs is inappropriate and Mosaic recommends EPA withdraw these provisions from the Rule. The use of the Vollenweider formula, as applied by EPA, is technically deficient and will not result in scientifically defensible criteria for protection of downstream lakes. FDEP conducted an analysis of EPA's approach for developing the criteria and concluded that application of the Vollenweider formula, along with the required derivations and assumptions, was not appropriate for Florida lakes.[39] FDEP identified key assumptions that, if not met for a particular lake, would render the resulting stream criteria inaccurate, such as: 1) the stream inflow is not larger than the lake

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3713Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams outflow; and 2) all phosphorus loading to the lake is from the stream.[40] The available data, as presented by FDEP, indicate one or both of these key assumptions would not apply to many Florida lakes. In addition, FDEP points to multiple areas of uncertainty in EPA's approach, including: 1) the applicability in Florida of the original assumptions of the Vollenweider model; 2) the applicability of the two assumptions mentioned above; 3) the use of a phosphorus sedimentation rate that is derived from temperate northern lakes data; and 4) discrepancies between the approach used to develop the lake nutrient criteria and the approach used to develop the upstream criteria.[41] These assumptions and uncertainties result in a phosphorus downstream lake protection criterion that is not scientifically defensible. Mosaic supports the critique of the EPA approach provided by FDEP regarding this criterion and respectfully requests EPA remove this language from the Rule. [39] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. Review of Proposed Criteria for the Protection of Downstream Lakes. Draft prepared by the Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration on 3/17/2010. ( http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/federal/fdep_comments_lakes_dpv.pdf ) [40] Id. [41] Id. 

# Comment ID 1302-1.001.010

Author Name: Parsons P. Organization: Florida Sugar Cane League 9. The downstream protection values proposed for Lakes relies on the 1976 version of the Vollenweider Model which is not appropriate for the use intended and not reliable when applied to Florida lakes, particularly Lake Okeechobee. This model, among other deficiencies, ignores internal loading from sediments and atmospheric deposition, both of which are significant for Lake Okeechobee. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.030

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Subsurface contributions of groundwater can also have a significant impact on nutrient concentrations, as well as dissolved oxygen. This is particularly true of incised streams where the eroded channel bottom is below the ground water table. The infiltrating ground water is typically very low in dissolved oxygen, and depending on the basin, may have significant concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus. For example, a major finding of groundwater conditions in the USGS Everglades study area was that while nitrate concentrations were below the drinking-water standard (10 mg/L) in 108 wells, the two shallow wells in the surficial aquifer of the citrus area had nitrate concentrations above 10mg/L (McPherson et al., 1996-98).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3714Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.052

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Downstream Protection of Lakes

• EPA discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.123

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Downstream Protection of Lakes The downstream protection values for lakes were derived by a mathematical model first developed by Vollenweider (1975). In the long term, rainfall and evaporation are likely to be similar, however, during drought periods, evaporation from lakes is very to exceed rainfall for a period of three or more years. EPA made several assumptions about the characteristics of Florida lakes when applying the model to derive the downstream protective values. Namely, EPA assumed as stated on pages 94-95 that:

• rainfall exceeds evaporation,

• that all external phosphorus sources come from streams,

• that a 2.5 month residence time was ubiquitous among Florida lakes,

• that 50% of the stream flow was delivered to a lake

• that there was no net removal of phosphorus in Florida streams The first assumption is acceptable in general practice, but there is a high degree of seasonality in Florida and therefore this assumption may not be correct for a significant portion of the year. The second assumption discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. The third assumption states that the residence time was arbitrarily set to 2.5 months which is a gross simplification that may not pertain to any individual lake in Florida, yet be accurate as an average of all lakes. This does not help when it comes time for each individual stream which contributes flow to a lake to be evaluated. The third assumption that 50% of the streamflow from a stream is delivered to the lake is likewise an arbitrary and gross estimation that is likely not relevant to any particular lake. As stated on page 95" only 20% of over 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them at all. How can EPA conclude that for lakes that have streamflow it constitutes 50% of the total volume? Despite concerns with the assumptions as stated above, an exercise was carried out to confirm EPA calculations based on their example for colored lakes and the modified Vollenweider formula as given by EPA below. Original comment letter contains additional information in the form of an equation of a modified Vollenweider Formula.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3715Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams See original comment letter. which yields a result of 1.447 mg/L as the DPV for a stream that delivers flow to a colored lake. It appears that EPA calculation on page 96 that reports the DPV as 0.12 mg/L did not take the square root of the lake's hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criterion that if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately. EPA has specifically allowed for the generation of site specific downstream protective values for streams that deliver flow into Florida lakes and it is recommended that site specific information on the proportion of streamflow delivered, retention times and the contribution and exchange of groundwater in these lakes be considered prior to implementing any listing process based on the downstream protective values. Many of Florida's lakes have significant surface water, groundwater interactions that can alternatively contribute to and account for loss of TP in the lake itself. Given the potential burden of the BMAP as a result of TMDL development based on these criteria, it is imperative that these criteria be both developed and implemented in a manner that does not pose unnecessary burden on local governments or private industries as a result of uncertainties in the estimation of the true protective value for these waterbodies. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.091

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Downstream Protection of Lakes The downstream protection values for lakes were derived by a mathematical model first developed by Vollenweider (1975). EPA made several assumptions about the characteristics of Florida lakes when applying the model to derive the downstream protective values. Namely, EPA assumed as stated on pages 94-95 that:

• rainfall exceeds evaporation,

• that all external phosphorus sources come from streams,

• that a 2.5 month residence time was ubiquitous among Florida lakes,

• that 50% of the stream flow was delivered to a lake

• that there was no net removal of phosphorus in Florida streams The first assumption is acceptable in general practice, but there is a high degree of seasonality in Florida and therefore this assumption may not be correct for a significant portion of the year. The second assumption discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. The third assumption states that the residence time was arbitrarily set to 2.5 months which is a gross simplification that may not pertain to any individual lake in Florida, yet be accurate as an average of all lakes. This does not help when it comes time for each individual stream which contributes flow to a lake to be evaluated. The third assumption that 50% of the streamflow from a stream is delivered to the lake is likewise an arbitrary and gross estimation that is likely not relevant to any particular lake. As stated on page 95" only 20% of over 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them at all. How can EPA conclude that for lakes that have streamflow it constitutes 50% of the total volume?

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3716Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Despite concerns with the assumptions as stated above, an exercise was carried out to confirm EPA calculations based on their example for colored lakes and the modified Vollenweider formula as given by EPA below. Original comment letter contains additional information in the form of an equation of a modified Vollenweider Formula. See original comment letter. Given the Numeric Criteria established for colored lakes for TP (i.e., 0.05 mg/L) the resulting calculation would be: Original comment letter contains additional information in the form of an equation. See original comment letter. which yields a result of 1.447 mg/L as the DPV for a stream that delivers flow to a colored lake. It appears that EPA calculation on page 96 that reports the DPV as 0.12 mg/L did not take the square root of the lake's hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criterion that if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.019

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works p.94 Need a term in the equation to account for atmospheric deposition from phosphorus- containing particulates. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.028

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Protection of Downstream Lakes and Estuaries The modified Vollenweider equation that EPA used to derive criteria for downstream protection of lakes has multiple invalid assumptions and will result in inaccurate phosphorus criteria for streams. For example, the assumption that total streamflow into a lake cannot be more than net outflow is not true in most situations; rainfall, runoff, and groundwater inputs can all serve to increase outflow independently of inflow from streams. Further, the original Vollenweider equation from which the modified EPA equation was derived from is based on numerous invalid assumptions such as: -�The assumption that the modeled lake is a completely mixed tank, meaning that water quality is homogenous throughout a lake. In the real world, water quality varies with depth, littoral and pelagic zones, and other spatial factors. -�The assumption that all phosphorus loading comes from stream inputs. Surface runoff, groundwater, baseflow, atmospheric inputs, and internal recycling (such as sediment resuspension) are all potentially significant sources of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3717Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams phosphorus to lakes (Hansen, et al, 1997, Welch and Cooke, 1995, and Furumai and Ohgaki, 1989).

- The assumption that the phosphorus sedimentation rate, which was derived using data from temperate northern lakes, is proportional to the amount of phosphorus in the lake. Sedimentation rates can be affected by numerous factors, including lake depth and primary productivity rates. (Refer to Gu et al, 1996)

- The assumption that outflow concentration of a lake is equal to in-lake concentration. This assumption fails to account for nutrient assimilation and dissimilation processes within the lake. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.030

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Internal recycling of phosphorus from sediments is known to provide a large percentage of phosphorus input in shallow Florida lakes through wind-driven resuspension (Lake Seminole Watershed Management Plan: www.pinellascounty.org/LakeSeminole ). In addition to resuspension, groundwater seepage, direct discharge of stormwater into lakes, and overland stormwater runoff (i.e., not by streamflow) can also be important sources of phosphorus. Failure to consider these additional sources of phosphorus results in an overestimation of stream impacts to lakes and a criterion that is overly protective. An equation or model that incorporates terms for the aforementioned sources of phosphorus would provide a more realistic approach for deriving the settling/loss term for phosphorus in the model equation; the current preset value will produce unrealistic estimates for many lakes. (Hansen, et al, 1997, Welch and Cooke, 1995, and Furumai and Ohgaki, 1989). 

# Comment ID 1434-1.001.024

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors T21 III C(6)(a) The HSWCD notes that there are several incorrect assumptions in the calculation ofprotective criteria necessary for protection of downstream lakes. SWFWMD has provided an excellent critique ofthe use of the Vollenweider equation for this purpose and we incorporate that comment by reference (comment #21, SWFWMD 2010). Additionally, the assumption that all phosphorus comes from inflowing streams is incorrect for Highlands County and other portions of the Lake Okeechobee watershed. Because of the phosphorus mining activities in peninsular Florida, total phosphorus concentrations in rainfall average 35 ug/L, a substantial load to all aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, the majority of the colored lakes in Highlands County receive substantial shallow groundwater seepage, which if moving through phosphate enriched muck provides a significant source of phosphorus to the surface water systems. The HSWCD asks that EPA revisit the assumption that "all external phosphorus loading comes from streams" (FR Vol. 75, No. 16, p. 4198). Additionally, the HSWCD suggests that the equation presented for calculation of a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3718Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams protective lake criterion be modified to add terms for other phosphorus sources in rainfall, groundwater seepage and resuspension from the sediments. {P. 4198, comment requested} 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.132

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute EPA acknowledges that there are dozens of factors that impact whether or not a stream loading would cause an ecologically unacceptable condition in a lake. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4198-99; TSD at 2-14, 2-15. EPA's approach only considered only two factors to determine the acceptable stream loading: lake detention time and percentage contribution of freshwater inflow from streams. 75 Fed. Reg. at 4198. All other factors impacting algal growth, phosphorus loading and the ability of a lake to assimilate nutrient loadings were ignored in EPA's calculation of stream DPVs. For the two controlling parameters, EPA chose only two conditions to represent all lakes: 50 percent of inflow due to streams and a 0.2 year detention time. EPA also assumed that there would be no loss of phosphorus in streams, no input of TP from the sediment bed and no contribution of TP from groundwater. None of these assumptions were documented to be accurate or reasonable. In fact, EPA presented information confirming that the influence of lake bed resuspension on TP load contributions "may be substantial" because Florida lakes are so shallow. TSD at 2-15. The Agency determined that this condition can be simulated but guessed that "would likely require substantial site-specific data for calibration" and so decided to ignore this factor. Regarding the assumption of "zero" groundwater loading, this assumption is refuted by EPA's analysis and the data presented in the clear springs section of the TSD, which noted high groundwater TP concentration are prevalent in many areas of the State. TSD at 3-5. 

# Comment ID 1474-2.001.003

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Comment on FOIA Item #5 The request asked: "With regard to the Vollenweider model, please provide all analyses or records which demonstrate (1) that the model produces accurate chl-a values for all types of Florida lakes and (2) that the model accurately predicts inlake TP concentrations regardless of the size, depth, detention time, or presence of macrophytes in the lakes." Response: EPA identified its Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Lakes and two copyrighted scientific articles written by Vollenweider.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3719Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1477-1.001.015

Author Name: Rudd F. Organization: Florida Engineering Society EPA's method of establishing stream criteria for protection of downstream lakes is too simplistic in that it does not include settling times or other sources of nutrients to lakes such as from groundwater and atmospheric deposition. 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.005

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport EPA's method to establish stream criteria for Protection of Downstream Lakes is too simplistic

• Equation is too simplistic as it does not include settling terms or other sources of nutrients to lakes like groundwater and atmospheric deposition 

# Comment ID 1481-1.001.025

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department III C(6)(a) Highlands County notes that there are several incorrect assumptions in the calculation of protective criteria necessary for protection of downstream lakes. SWFWMD has provided an excellent critique of the use of the Vollenweider equation for this purpose and we incorporate that comment by reference (comment #21, SWFWMD 2010). Additionally, the assumption that all phosphorus comes from inflowing streams is incorrect for Highlands County and other portions of the Lake Okeechobee watershed. Because of the phosphorus mining activities in peninsular Florida, total phosphorus concentrations in rainfall average 35 ug/L, a substantial load to all aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, the majority of the colored lakes in Highlands County receive substantial shallow groundwater seepage, which if moving through phosphate enriched muck provides a significant source of phosphorus to the surface water systems. Highlands County asks that EPA revisit the assumption that "all external phosphorus loading comes from streams" (FR Vol. 75, No. 16, p. 4198). Additionally, Highlands County suggest that the equation presented for calculation of a protective lake criterion be modified to add terms for other phosphorus sources in rainfall, groundwater seepage and resuspension from the sediments. {p. 4198, comment requested} 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.009

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3720Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Specific FDEP Responses to EPA Questions Question: Review of Formula

• Appropriateness of assumptions and default values

• Requested comments on assumptions that a) rainfall exceeds evaporation, and b) all external phosphorus loading comes from streams (surface water runoff far greater than groundwater) FDEP Response: (a) This is a key assumption of EPA and must be met for the EPA modifications of the Vollenweider equation to work. As presented above in the discussion of the derivation and application of the modified equation, this assumption is not valid for many lakes in many individual years. (b) For some number of Florida's lakes, sources of TP are varied and may include significant contributions from local runoff, interflow and groundwater, resuspension of previously settled TP, and rainfall directly on the lake's surface. This is especially true for the many lakes with large lake surface to watershed ratios and those that are not connected to other flow through lakes. Even among the state's numerous "chains" of lakes, wide variation is observed in all of the key assumptions that EPA has made. DEP examined several lakes in the Kisssimmee Chain of Lakes to explore the variability in loading sources within a chain of lakes and estimated TP "settling rates" based on detailed budgets (10-year averages) for the each lake. Estimated settling rates ranged from 4.8% for Lake Marian, 6.2 % for Lake Cypress, 19% for Lake Kissimmee, and 26% for Lake Jackson, Original comment letter contains additional information in a table with specific lake statistics on page 30 of the pdf. See original comment letter. For the three lakes with upstream basins, the upstream contribution was 75%, local runoff (including any local streams) averaged 21%, baseflow 2%, and direct loading onto the lake 2%. (c) The equation assumes complete mix. Jones and Lee 1982, warn against use of the equation for the whole-lakes if the lake is multi-lobed or where lake water quality data is collected within the influence of stream in-flows (not well mixed). 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.064

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District 1976 Vollenweider Model is Unsuitable for Analysis of DPVs The USEPA used the Vollenweider 1976 phosphorus loading model as a basis to determine the adequacy of its

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3721Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams proposed stream nutrient criteria to protect downstream lakes. Overall, the analysis is simplistic, superficial and scientifically questionable, to the extent that the resulting criteria are arbitrary. Vollenweider's 1976 model is one of the earliest of the semi-empirical P-loading models developed by limnologists to relate phosphorus loadings to steady-state (average) concentrations of phosphorus in lakes. The model was formulated on simple chemical reactor principles, but the basic formula was modified in the 1976 paper into an empirical relationship to fit data on temperate lakes. The types of lakes used to develop the model are different in several important respects from the Florida lakes to which USEPA applied the model in the current analysis. First, the lakes used by Vollenweider are relatively large and deep drainage lakes that receive most of their water and nutrient loadings from measurable stream flows. Second, the lakes are in temperate regions of the World and exhibit classic seasonal patterns of nutrient loadings and algal growth responses. Third, the great majority of the lakes were phosphorus-limited, at least in their unimpacted states (in terms of human development). These conditions facilitated the use of simple chemical-reactor principles-treating the lakes as continuous-stirred tank reactors that are at steady-state and completely mixed on an annual basis. Florida lakes, in contrast, tend to be shallow, and many of them have only limited amounts of measurable flow from defined streams as their water sources. Seasonal cycles are much more nuanced in sub-tropical and warm-temperate Florida lakes. Instead, algal growth can occur nearly year-round, and blooms are better characterized as stochastic temporal variations rather than as simple seasonal cycles. Although the above characteristics do not preclude the development of reactor-based nutrient loading models for Florida lakes, they do mean that models developed for northtemperate lakes should not be applied to Florida lakes without modification to account for these differences. A variety of studies conducted over the past ~30 years have recognized this fact and have described new models or modified models like those of Vollenweider (1975, 1976) to better fit the situation in Florida. As a minimum, these later analyses showed that the basic Vollenweider and related loading models need to be calibrated to Florida lakes. This results in the presence of additional (empirical) coefficients in the model formulation. The USEPA mentioned some of these later models, referencing work by Baker et al. 1985, which is based on an earlier, more extensive report (Baker et al. 1981), Canfield and Bachman 1981, and the recent paper by Steward and Lowe (2010), but this is not a thorough list of the later models for Florida lakes. Moreover, the documentation provided by EPA did not use any of the more recent models in its analysis. Instead, it relied on the original, and inherently inferior, Vollenweider (1976) formulation. Two factors are especially important for any model to accurately simulate the behavior of nutrients (P and N) in Florida lakes and their drainage basins: (i) the model must recognize the complicated nature of loadings into Florida lakes from surrounding terrestrial areas, and (ii) the model must account for recycling of nutrients from bottom sediments. The latter is critically important for large, shallow lakes (e.g., mean depths of 2-3 m or less), which are abundant in Florida. Vollenweider's model and most of the other models mentioned above do not include recycling from bottom sediments. Vollenweider's model does not explicitly exclude consideration of external nutrient sources aside from streams, but the application of this model by USEPA to develop the proposed criteria assumed that all phosphorus loading to lakes was from stream flow. A simple model described by Brezonik and Pollman (1999) is applicable to Florida lakes and explicitly considers internal phosphorus loading from bottom sediments of lakes. Application of this readily available model would have yielded significantly more reliable results.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3722Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.066

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Additional Modeling Considerations A few specific issues related to USEPA's application of the Vollenweider model are in need of comment.

• First, although average evaporation (E) is lower than precipitation (P) in Florida (p. 15), the average values actually are fairly comparable, and in dry years, E may be exceed P. Consequently; the USEPA's analysis actually may not be valid in such years.

• Second, the assumption that all P comes from streams is not valid for most Florida lakes. Some P is derived from atmospheric deposition (wet and dry). Direct runoff to lakes (not from defined streams or channels) is a considerable portion of the flow contribution to many lakes, given the sandy soils and lack of surface streams in many areas of Florida. The text acknowledges this (p. 16) by indicating that only 20% of Florida lakes are directly fed by streams. The analysis is not adequate to take this into account. In such cases may not be certain that stream flow represents the dominant nutrient source for the lake. Groundwater may play an important role in some lakes, but was omitted from the USEPA analysis.

• Third, bottom recycling from sediments is critical in shallow lakes (depths of ~2-3 m or less), which are common in Florida. The USEPA acknowledged the likely importance of internal loading, but still used the simplistic Vollenweider model. The approaches that were recommended to account for internal loading (excluding the loss term or changing its sign) are not scientifically defensible. Limnologists can estimate internal P loading with reasonable accuracy using incubations of sediment cores under laboratory conditions. That approach, coupled with a model that includes a specific term for internal loading, should be used if accurate simulations or predictions are desired.

• Fourth, Lake Jesup was chosen for study in an effort to learn more about high stream flow conditions in the St. John's River basin, but is a poor example of such a system. Net flow is from the lake into the St. Johns River. Tidal influences extending far up the St. Johns River cause some back flow into the northern part of the lake, but not on a net basis and certainly not to a degree that could be categorized as "high flow". Overall, the superficial analysis provided by USEPA (2010a,b) is inadequate to develop stream nutrient criteria protective of individual lakes. The criteria developed are arbitrary and will; not help define stream nutrient criteria that will protect lakes from eutrophication. The analysis has a "back-of-the-envelope" flavor to it, similar to what one might have seen in articles on the topic from about 20-30 years ago. . 

# Comment ID 1722-1.001.008

Author Name: Cunniff L. Organization: Orange County Environmental Protection Division 7. The method for stream criteria considerations to downstream lakes does not address assimilative abilities of a lake nor other nutrient loading factors such as groundwater loadings into lakes. Florida lakes are generally very shallow and can be very susceptible to the shallow groundwater influences. In addition, aerial nutrient deposition is a significant load

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3723Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams to a shallow lake system and should be considered as a source. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.044

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 8. EPA discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.135

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(6)(a) Downstream Protection of Lakes Statement: EPA is proposing an equation to relate a lake TP concentration criterion to the concentration needed to be met in incoming streams to support the lake criterion. EPA proposes to apply the resulting stream concentration as the applicable criterion for all stream segments upstream of the lake Comment: Because most Florida's lakes have several significant sources of phosphorus (e.g., groundwater, local runoff, and atmospheric deposition) and a single stream seldom is the primary source load of phosphorus to the lake, the use of a simple steady-state expression cannot be used to relate stream concentrations to final lake concentrations. More complex lakespecific and watershed specific modeling exercises may be able to provide managers with some useful values in the rare case where lake impairment can be related to TP loads from a stream that is meeting the IPV criterion. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.136

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Statement: EPA assumed that rainfall exceeds evaporation in Florida lakes and that all external phosphorus loading comes from

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3724Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams streams. EPA considers the first assumption reasonable given the rainfall frequency and volume in Florida. The second assumption is reasonable to the extent that surface runoff contributions are far greater than groundwater or atmospheric sources of TP in Florida lakes. EPA requests comment on both these assumptions. Comment: The first assumption requires more investigation and it is critical for a steady-state model such as the modified Vollenweider expression to hold. In the long term, rainfall and evaporation are likely to be similar, however, during drought periods, evaporation from lakes is likely to exceed rainfall for a period of three or more years. The second assumption does not appear to be true for the vast majority of cases. Florida's geology is phosphorus-rich. This geology affects streams that are affected by groundwater and lake bottom contact with phosphorus-rich strata such as the Hawthorne. Other sources of phosphorus (besides streams) include point sources, stormwater, and direct groundwater/springs. Because many of Florida's phosphorus-rich lakes are shallow, resuspension plays a major role in water column TP concentrations. Because many of Florida's lakes support large aquatic life populations, bioperturbation and nutrient cycling by fish and aquatic plants is significant as well. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.105

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Statement: EPA assumed that rainfall exceeds evaporation in Florida lakes and that all external phosphorus loading comes from streams. EPA considers the first assumption reasonable given the rainfall frequency and volume in Florida. The second assumption is reasonable to the extent that surface runoff contributions are far greater than groundwater or atmospheric sources of TP in Florida lakes. EPA requests comment on both these assumptions. Comment: The first assumption requires more investigation and it is critical for a steady-state model such as the modified Vollenweider expression to hold. In the long term, rainfall and evaporation are likely to be similar, however, during drought periods, evaporation from lakes is likely to exceed rainfall for a period of three or more years. The second assumption does not appear to be true for the vast majority of cases. Florida's geology is phosphorus-rich. This geology affects streams that are affected by groundwater and lake bottom contact with phosphorus-rich strata such as the Hawthorne. Other sources of phosphorus (besides streams) include point sources, stormwater, and direct groundwater/springs. Because many of Florida's phosphorus-rich lakes are shallow, resuspension plays a major role in water column TP concentrations. Because many of Florida's lakes support large aquatic life populations, bioperturbation and nutrient cycling by fish and aquatic plants is significant as well. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.146

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3725Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 8. EPA discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.038

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County 8. EPA discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.121

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(6)(a) Downstream Protection of Lakes Statement: EPA is proposing an equation to relate a lake TP concentration criterion to the concentration needed to be met in incoming streams to support the lake criterion. EPA proposes to apply the resulting stream concentration as the applicable criterion for all stream segments upstream of the lake Comment: The use of a modified steady-state expression cannot capture the inherent complexity of relating stream TPconcentrations (spatially and temporally aggregated) to the impact on lake concentrations of TP. Complex system-bysystem modeling exercises may be able to provide managers with some useful values in a case where lake impairment has been shown to be associated with TP and other sources of TP are not significant. However, the method of establishment of the regional stream criteria using a minimally disturbed land use reference stream approach is inherently protective of regional lakes. For example, we would expect that streams with naturally TP values that flow into lakes in the region likely are also naturally high in TP concentrations and have either developed a balanced ecology in a eutrophic state or are extremely nitrogen limited. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.122

Author Name: Gallagher J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3726Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Pasco County Statement: EPA assumed that rainfall exceeds evaporation in Florida lakes and that all external phosphorus loading comes from streams. EPA considers the first assumption reasonable given the rainfall frequency and volume in Florida. The second assumption is reasonable to the extent that surface runoff contributions are far greater than groundwater or atmospheric sources of TP in Florida lakes. EPA requests comment on both these assumptions. Comment: The first assumption requires more investigation and it is critical for a steady-state model such as the modified Vollenweider expression to hold. In the long term, rainfall and evaporation are likely to be similar, however, during drought periods, evaporation from lakes is likely to exceed rainfall for a period of three or more years. The second assumption does not appear to be true for the vast majority of cases. Florida’s geology is phosphorus-rich. This geology affects streams that are affected by groundwater and lake bottom contact with phosphorus-rich strata such as the Hawthorne. Other sources of phosphorus (besides streams) include point sources, stormwater, and direct groundwater/springs. Because many of Florida’s phosphorus-rich lakes are shallow, resuspension plays a major role in water column TP concentrations. Because many of Florida’s lakes support large aquatic life populations, bioperturbation and nutrient cycling by fish and aquatic plants is significant as well. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.123

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Statement: EPA derived the following equation to relate a protective lake criterion to a corresponding protective stream concentration: Original comment letter contains additional information in the form of an equation and language describing the equation on p. 66. See original comment letter. Comment: The original Vollenweider expression (Vollenweider 1975) is a basic mass balance model that simply settles the phosphorus loaded to the lake using a settling rate value and the lake’s retention time. The load that doesn’t settle or leave the lake remains as the lake’s in-water TP concentration. The original expression (rearranged to solve for the lake water column concentration) is shown below. In it, there are four chambers: the TP load coming into the lake, the load leaving the lake, the load that settles to the bottom, and the TP that remains in the water column. The concentration of phosphorus remaining in the lake [Original comment letter contains additional information in the form of an equation on p. 67. See original comment letter.] is equal to the input load (Lv, g/m3/yr) divided by the sum of the sedimentation rate for phosphorus (p) and the lake’s hydraulic residence time (w) (both in years). Original comment letter contains additional information in the form of an equation on p. 67. See original comment letter. Because there is no readily available specific settling rate for phosphorus, Vollenweider developed a relationship

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3727Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams between that settling rate and lake depth that is roughly approximated as [Original comment letter contains additionalinformation in the form of an equation on p. 67. See original comment letter.] (Vollenweider 1975, 61). Because depthof-lake relationship to phosphorus settling did not hold in many lakes (particularly the US Great Lakes), (Vollenweider, 1976), developed a relationship between the phosphorus settling term, p, and residence time [Original comment letter contains additional information in the form of an equation on p. 67. See original comment letter]. The EPA’s expression uses this substitution in their proposed equation. Additionally, because the EPA needed the stream load to the lake to be expressed as a in-stream concentration, the EPA added a stream flow component to the equation (cf). For the mass balance of this equation to hold, two assumptions must be maintained: (1) stream flow in cannot be larger than lake outflow and (2) all phosphorus loading must be from the stream. For the first assumption to hold, evaporation from the lake must be mostly balanced or less than the rainfall directly to the lake. Over the long term, evaporation rates and rainfall in Florida are mostly balanced (see (FDEP, 2010a) for a presentation of the data for several stations in the Kissimmee River basin), but on a month-by-month basis or during periods of unusual weather patterns such as extended drought or tropical cyclone activity, it does not hold. Additionally for those lakes with large surface areas versus stream input, the rainfall directly to the lake will in many cases exceed the stream input. The second assumption in its strictest sense is only theoretically possible and likely does not hold for any of Florida’s lakes. Broadly interpreting it, however, it would hold if all of the inputs to the lake (i.e., the input from multiple streams, the input from local drainage, the input from ground water, and the input from rainfall) all have similar concentrations of phosphorus. That is, if there are four stream inputs and the streams have different phosphorus concentrations, the equation doesn’t hold. If the streams and the immediate lake land uses are sufficiently different to result in different TP concentrations, it doesn’t hold. If ground water sources to the lake are significant enough vis-à-vis the stream flow and the TP concentration is higher or lower than stream, it doesn’t hold. If a lakes surface area is large relative to the drainage basin, inputs from rainfall and atmospheric TP will most certainly differ from the stream inputs. Additionally, some Florida Lakes (i.e. within St. Johns River) have very complex hydrology due to their low slopes, backwater effects, and wind driven forcings, this will significantly alter their residence times through various years. Additionally, the application of the criteria to all areas upstream of the receiving water does not account for numerous processes that can impact loadings to a specified waterbody and will most likely be overprotective of waters well upstream of receiving waters. Another key aspect missing from the DPV evaluation for lakes is the understanding of regional conditions that will impact instream TP concentrations, for example in the Bone Valley. As was pointed out for the lakes criteria, the colored and clear lake demarcations do not account for the regional soil contributions to phosphorus nor the potential for nitrogen limitation to drive upstream protective values, this needs to be accounted for in the DPV determination as it needs to be accounted for in the lakes criteria. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.032

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3728Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 21 .The modified Vollenweider equation that USEPA used to derive criteria for downstream protection of lakes has multiple invalid assumptions and will result in inaccurate phosphorus criteria for streams (page 4198, proposed rule). For example, the assumption that total streamflow into a lake cannot be more than net outflow is not true in most situations ; rainfall, runoff, and groundwater inputs can all serve to increase outflow independently of inflow from streams. Further, the original Vollenweider equation from which the modified USEPA equation was derived from is based on numerous invalid assumptions such as:

- The assumption that the modeled lake is a completely mixed tank, meaning that water quality is homogenous throughout a lake . In the real world, water quality varies with depth, littoral and pelagic zones, and other spatial factors.

- The assumption that all phosphorus loading comes from stream inputs . Surface runoff, groundwater, baseflow, atmospheric inputs, and internal recycling (such as sediment resuspension) are all potentially significant sources of phosphorus to lakes .

- The assumption that the phosphorus sedimentation rate, which was derived using data from temperate northern lakes, is proportional to the amount of phosphorus in the lake . Sedimentation rates can be affected by numerous factors, including lake depth.

- The assumption that outflow concentration of a lake is equal to in-lake concentration . This assumption fails to account for nutrient assimilation and dissimilation processes within the lake. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.037

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 26. USEPA's assumption that "all external phosphorus loading comes from streams" is invalid (page 4198, proposed rule) . Internal recycling of phosphorus from sediments is known to provide a large percentage of phosphorus input in shallow Florida lakes through wind-driven resuspension (Tomasko et al. 2009) . In addition to resuspension, groundwater seepage, direct discharge of stormwater into lakes, and overland stormwater runoff (i .e ., not by streamflow) (Figure 3) can also be important sources of phosphorus . Failure to consider these additional sources of phosphorus results in an overestimation of stream impacts to lakes and a criterion that is overly protective. An equation or model that incorporates terms for the aforementioned sources of phosphorus would provide a more realistic approach for deriving the settling/loss term for phosphorus in the model equation ; the current preset value will produce unrealistic estimates for many lakes (page 4198, proposed rule). For example, PBS&J (2007) developed a model that indicated daily wind speed, rainfall and stage explained 29.3% of the variation of TP in Lake Hancock. 

# Comment ID 2018-6.001.010

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa 22. EPA discounts any contribution of TP from either atmospheric deposition or groundwater, both of which may contribute significantly to the loading of TP in some Florida lakes. The residence time was arbitrarily set to 2.5 months which is a gross simplification that may not pertain to any individual lake in Florida, yet be accurate as an average of all

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3729Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams lakes. This becomes problematic when it comes time for each individual stream which contributes flow to a lake to be evaluated. 24. The assumption that 50% of the streamflow from a stream is delivered to the lake is likewise an arbitrary and gross estimation that is likely not relevant to any particular lake. The EPA recognized" only 20% of over 7,000 Florida lakes have streams flowing into them at all." How can EPA identify those lakes that receive at least 50% of the its total inflow from streams and on what basis do they make that assumption? It appears that the EPA calculation that reports the DPY as 0.12 mg/L did not take the square root of the lakes hydrologic retention time. This calculation error results in a more stringent criteria than if the calculation were to have been carried out appropriately. 25. EPA has specifically allowed for the generation of site-specific downstream protective values for streams that deliver flow into Florida lakes and it is recommended that site specific information on the proportion of streamflow delivered, retention times, and the contribution and exchange of groundwater in these lakes be considered prior to implementing any listing process based on the downstream protective values. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.109

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 4. The USEPA's approach does not account for all loads. Atmospheric sources and surficial groundwater (seepage) are not accounted for in the model, and these are significant, particularly in Florida's karst regions. In fact, USEPA did not consider loadings from diffuse sources such as shallow subsurface flows. As USEPA points out in the proposed rule, only 20% of Florida lakes have defined stream inflows (Fernald & Purdum, 1998). This is a particularly serious limitation because many of the systems USEPA is trying to protect will not be described by the Vollenweider approach. USEPA's application of Vollenweider's model has additional shortcomings, many of which have been pointed out in FDEP's comments (FDEP, 2010c). Another significant shortcoming is the selection of the critical loading values based on a loading chlorophyll a predictive regression derived from streams. It is unclear in the USEPA technical support document (TSD; USEPA 2010b) how the Vollenweider model performs in terms of predictive value, using the critical TP and TN values proposed by USEPA. It appears that the USEPA mixed regressions using an analysis from streams. and applying it to lakes without comparing the model outcome to any observations. Thus, we cannot judge how the equation performs relative to actual lake observations. Again, USEPA failed to provide an appropriate dose-response relationship to illustrate how lakes are classified with the new relationships. Although the FDEP provided some comparisons for eutrophic systems (FDEP DPV, 201Oc), where the USEPA relationship does not work, the ability of the model across the broader range of lakes has not been tested. The use of the Vollenweider single reactor model for large shallow lakes (such as Lake Okeechobee) and wetland-linked lake ecosystems is not appropriate. These systems do not respond as a single reactor and often show varying responses from one lake to another and even within a single lake. For example, in Lake Okeechobee, the northern portion of the lake responded differently during wet-dry seasons because of differential loadings from different portions of the watershed. The northern part exhibited phosphorus limitation while the southern portion exhibited nitrogen limitation during the same dry season and the trend reversed during the wet season (Brezonik, et a/. 1979). Although the USEPA apparently was familiar with these Florida-specific (and more appropriate) models, they chose not to use them. SER recommends that the USEPA revisit existing models specific to Florida and take these into account when developing models for Florida lake systems. In particular, models of the Dillon-Rigler type should be evaluated, using modified criteria, and the models should be tested by taking recent

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3730Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams observations in a set of lakes to evaluate how well they predict nutrient conditions. USEPA asked for input on reversing the sign on the "sedimentation" term because some lakes periodically have negative sedimentation. As FDEP (2010c) has pointed out, at steady state, lakes are net sinks, and to reverse the sign on the sedimentation term is not reflective of either the model constraints or lake systems in general. A bigger issue is when does one decide whether to change the sign or not? This is a very SUbjective decision, and does not fit with either the basic assumptions of the Vollenweider model or the behavior of Florida lake systems. A simple model applicable to Florida lakes that explicitly considered internal phosphorus loading (from bottom sediments of lakes) was described by Brezonik and Pollman (1999). Finally, none of the Vollenweider type models or available input-output loading models appropriately address nutrient concentrations in lakes where either groundwater or macrophyte inputs are significant sources of nutrient input, such as exists with reclaimed or lakes associated with wetlands and large expanses of macrophytes. Unless FDEP can craft a classification scheme that adequately categorizes the various lake systems in Florida, we cannot support any of the lake proposals for numeric nutrient criteria because they are not scientifically credible. Neither the USEPA nor FDEP considered reclaimed lakes, i.e. manmade lakes when developing their classification schemes. Additional significant refinement of the classification schemes for lakes is necessary. 

# Comment ID 2427.001.007

Author Name: Manson D. Organization: Manson Law Group, P.A., on behalf of City of Maitland Downstream Lakes Protection EPA's proposed methodology for deriving stream criteria to protect downstream lakes is inappropriate, and the City recommends EPA withdraw this language from the proposed rule. The use of the Vollenweider Formula, as applied by EPA, is technically deficient and will not result in scientifically defensible criteria for protection of downstream lakes. The FDEP conducted an analysis of EPA's approach for developing the criteria, concluding that the application of the Vollenweider formula and its required derivations and assumptions was not appropriate for Florida lakes (FDEP 2010b). FDEP pointed out key assumptions that, if not met for a particular lake, would render the resulting stream criteria inaccurate, such as: 1) the stream inflow is not larger than the lake outflow and 2) all phosphorus loading to the lake is from the stream (FDEP 2010b). The available data, as presented by FDEP, indicate one or both of these key assumptions would not apply to many Florida lakes. In addition, FDEP points to uncertainty in EPA's approach including; 1) the applicability in Florida of the original assumptions of the Vollenweider model, 2) the applicability of the two assumptions mentioned above, 3) the use of a phosphorus sedimentation rate derived from temperate northern lakes data, and 4) discrepancies between the approach used to develop the lake nutrient criteria and the approach used to develop the upstream criteria (FDEP 2010b). These assumptions and uncertainties result in a phosphorus downstream lake protection criterion that is not scientifically defensible. The City of Maitland agrees with the criticism of the EPA approach by FDEP and respectfully requests EPA remove this language from the proposed rule. 

# Response

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3731Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams
Comment IDs: 0588.001.006, 0933.001.001, 1217-2.001.054, 1302-1.001.010, 1352-1.001.030, 1352-1.001.052, 1352-1.001.123, 1355-2.001.091, 1368-1.001.019, 1431-1.001.028, 1431-1.001.030, 1434-1.001.024, 1474-1.001.132, 1477-1.001.015, 1480­ 2.001.005, 1481-1.001.025, 1673-1.001.009, 1715-3.001.064, 1715-3.001.066, 1722-1.001.008, 1761-3.001.044, 1761-3.001.135, 1761-3.001.136, 1777-2.001.105, 1777-2.001.146, 1805-3.001.038, 1805-3.001.121, 1805-3.001.122, 1805­ 3.001.123,1836.001.032, 1836.001.037, 2018-6.001.010, 2233-1.001.109, 2427.001.007 Response: Thank you for your comments. EPA received numerous comments on the Vollenweider approach, including:

• �The need to account for other sources of P

• �The need to account for TP attenuation in streams

• �The need to account for assimilation within lake

• �Application in multi-lobed systems

• �Groundwater can be an important source of TP and low DO

• �Use site-specific modeling

• �Need site-specific data for listing a waterbody

• �Use more Florida specific models, e.g., “modified Dillon-Rigler”

• �Bioturbation can be important EPA’s January 2010 proposed rule proposed the use of the Vollenweider model equation to ensure the protection of downstream lakes requires input of two lake-specific characteristics: the fraction of inflow due to streamflow and the hydraulic retention time. Because lake-specific input values may not always be readily available, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from streamflow and hydraulic retention time that could be used in those instances. EPA’s January 2010 proposed rule discussed the flexibility for the State to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for these two parameters, as long as the State determines that such inputs are appropriate and documents the site-specific values. Some commenters felt that that the Vollenweider equation was overly simplistic and that it does not include the necessary factors to account for physical, hydrologic, chemical, and biological processes necessary to determine protective criteria. Several commenters also suggested the need for TN values to protect downstream lakes that are nitrogen-limited (such as many of the lakes in the phosphorus-rich areas of the State). Comments included a recommendation to use models that can better represent site-specific conditions, such as BATHTUB, which EPA is finalizing in this rule. EPA’s August 2010 supplemental notice requested comment on using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes, allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available that would use the lake criteria themselves as criteria for upstream waters flowing into the lake. EPA has finalized an approach that provides several options for setting DPVs at the pour point, where waters from inflowing streams enter a lake. Where sufficient data and information are available, DPVs can be established using BATHTUB, which can represent site-specific conditions relevant to a particular lake (such as streamflow and groundwater contributions to a lake, and differences in retention times). The rule also specifically allows FDEP or EPA to determine that use of another scientifically defensible modeling approach will result in the protection of downstream lakes. Where sufficient data and information are not

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3732Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams available to apply a modeling approach, the rule specifies other approaches based on whether the downstream lake is attaining the lake criteria or whether the downstream is either not assessed or is impaired. (see final rule and preamble).

Comment ID: 1474-2.001.003 Response: Comment on FOIA response Thank you for your comment. This is not a comment on the rule. 

# III.C.6.Q.3 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 3 Comment ID 0900-1.001.002

Author Name: Milstrey G. Organization: Bureau of Water Assessment and Management, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation I. Downstream Standards and Protection of Downstream Uses: We are concerned that the inclusion of protection of downstream standards within the actual proposed criteria for Florida may set a precedent that would unnecessarily require other states to use the same approach within their own criteria. We believe that having the criteria themselves be based on downstream uses and standards is both unworkable and unnecessary. We strongly agree that downstream waters and their uses must be protected, but disagree with how this should be accomplished. We believe that a more efficient and practical approach is to do this via the implementation of the state's criteria. Here is how we do this in New York: New York State protects downstream uses through the implementation of its ambient water quality standards and guidance values. Take for example where a Class C stream is tributary to a Class A lake. The best usage (designated use) of the Class A (but not Class C) waters includes "source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes (see 6 NYCRR Part 701 at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/2485.html ). If we have a discharge into the Class C stream, the Class C standards and guidance values would have to be met in the Class C stream. In addition, the Class A standards and guidance values (which include those for drinking water source protection) would have to be met where the water becomes Class A (where the Class C Alexander B. Grannis Commissioner stream enters the Class A water, and in all parts of the Class A lake. The fact that the Class A standards exist in the downstream water would be taken into account when doing waste load allocation determinations for both State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) and in Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) calculations. New York's approach is thus highly protective of the uses of downstream waters. This same approach will be followed for nutrients (which we would treat like any other pollutant) should a more stringent nutrient standard or guidance value be established for a downstream water. The Florida approach essentially requires a total maximum daily load (TMDL) calculation for each group of streams.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3733Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1368-1.001.020

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works p.94-95 Phosphorus equation units don't work. Is this an empirical equation? If so, great care must be taken in applying this equation to areas other than those used to derive the equation. Try a particle-size distribution instead of a residence time to account for phosphorus losses due to settlement of solids in order to account for re-suspension of sediments by turbulence caused by rain and stream flow into the lake. Using particle-size distribution and rainfall data, could calculate which diameter sediments on average will settle out. 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.008

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection An alternative approach would be to apply downstream protection values at the pour point of watersheds. Such an approach would involve setting a criterion at the point where the watershed discharges into another waterbody (like a lake). That value would also provide a numeric protective threshold that would be used to assess attainment and generate water quality based effluent limits for upstream NPDES discharges. This approach was contemplated in the DPV criteria for estuaries as articulated in EPA's technical support document. In this circumstance, given the extensive network of wetlands and intervening lakes along waterways in Florida, we would recommend applying a pour point concept at the point where the stream enters the lake. 

# Comment ID 1786-1.001.029

Author Name: Kirk K. Organization: National Association of Clean Water Agencies For proposed water quality standards, a significant unresolved question for many states has been, how far downstream should beneficial uses be protected? The EPA proposal for Florida is a process that is essentially a total maximum annual load calculation on lakes and reservoirs to ensure that the criteria set for inflowing streams do not impair waters downstream. This method of determining downstream impacts is combining two distinct ideas, water quality standards and TMDLs. In the past these have been completely separate. Water quality standards have been based purely on the ability to meet the designated uses of the particular waterbody. EPA in effect, has set up a TMDL analysis standard for the state of Florida in the proposed rule. EPA has consistently taken the position that: "adoption of criteria that represent ‘minimally impacted' conditions and that are sufficiently protective of near field downstream effects should ultimately achieve a far field benefit" (EPA, 2001, at 17). If further reductions are needed to protect downstream waters, those reductions should be based on a complete loading analysis with an allocation of nutrient loadings via the TMDL

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3734Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

process. 

# Response Comment IDs: 1673-1.001.008, 0900-1.001.002 Response: Apply DPV at pour point, especially given number of wetland and intervening lakes in Florida (1673-1.001.008, 0900­ 1.001.002). EPA agrees with the view that the DPV should be applied at the pour point, the point at which an inflowing stream enters a lake. In the upstream watershed, nutrient loads can be allocated according to local watershed characteristics and sources (see final rule and preamble).

Comment IDs: 0900-1.001.002, 1786-1.001.029, 1786-1.001.029 Response: Florida approach is “de facto” TMDL on all watersheds going into lakes (comments 0900-1.001.002, 1786-1.001.029); inappropriately combining TMDL and WQS concepts (comment 1786-1.001.029) Thank you for your comment. One of the purposes in undertaking the rulemaking is to set the numeric WQC was to establish targets protect the water quality and the designated uses of the waters. The TMDL process is intended to determine, for impaired waters, the pollutant loads that will result in those waters meeting applicable water quality standards. TMDLs are developed on waters that are already impaired; whereas WQS are intended to prevent waters from becoming impaired in the first place. Calculation of DPVs creates the nutrient budgets before the lake is impaired (pursuant to what the regulations tell states to do) so as to prevent impairment and a TMDL. The advantage of doing the calculations on the front end to determine applicable criteria (IPVs or DPVs) has been expressed as EPA policy in the Grumbles memo (2007) (see preamble for full citation for Grumbles 2007)

•� easier and faster development of TMDLs; •� quantitative targets to support trading programs; •� easier to write protective NPDES permits; •� increased effectiveness in evaluating success of nutrient runoff minimization programs; •� measurable, objective water quality baselines against which to measure environmental progress.

Comment ID: 1368-1.001.020 Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA’s August 2010 supplemental notice requested comment on using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes, allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available that would use the lake criteria themselves as criteria for upstream waters flowing into the lake. EPA has decided not to use the Vollenweider equation for deriving DPVs. EPA has finalized an approach that provides several options for setting DPVs at the pour point, where waters from inflowing streams enter a lake. Where sufficient data and information

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3735Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams are available, DPVs can be established using BATHTUB, which can represent site-specific conditions relevant to a particular lake (such as streamflow and groundwater contributions to a lake, and differences in retention times). The rule also specifically allows FDEP or EPA to determine that use of another scientifically defensible modeling approach will result in the protection of downstream lakes. Where sufficient data and information are not available to apply a modeling approach, the rule specifies other approaches based on whether the downstream lake is attaining the lake criteria or whether the downstream is either not assessed or is impaired. (see final rule and preamble). 

# III.C.6.Q.4 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 4 No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

# III.C.6.Q.5 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 5 Comment ID 1434-1.001.026

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors T23 III C(6)(a) Regarding settling/loss terms, the HSWCD suggests using different terms depending on the morphology ofthe lake, or absent that, the Florida Lake Region (Griffith et. al 1997). For lakes in region 75-33, average depths are such that a positive loss term is a reasonable expectation. For lakes in region 75-34, sediment resuspension plays a significant role in nutrient dynamics and so a negative term would be more appropriate. The HSWCD suggests that this approach be considered for inclusion in their rule. {p 4198, comment requested} 

# Comment ID 1481-1.001.027

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department III C(6)(a) Regarding settling/loss terms, Highlands County suggest using different terms depending on the morphology of the lake, or absent that, the Florida Lake Region (Griffith et. aI 1997). For lakes in region 75-33, average depths are such that a positive loss term is a reasonable expectation. For lakes in region 75-34, sediment resuspension plays a significant role in nutrient dynamics and so a negative term would be more appropriate. Highlands County suggests that this approach be considered for inclusion in their rule. {p 4198, comment requested}

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3736Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.012

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Question:

• Requested comment on not using settling term, including using negative rate FDEP Response: The equation incorporates a term for settling (1 over the square root of the retention time, Tw). This term for settling has an assumed relationship with the retention time. This relationship between the settling rate and Tw in the equation is derived from data gathered in northern deep lakes. Florida lakes are shallow and may have significant resuspension of in-lake material, making actual settling in our lakes lower. Use of this equation is ony appropriate when all major sources have the same concentration. The EPA approach is to simply sum up the flow contributions of each source and then apply the equation as if all the various sources had the same concentration. If there are numerous inlet streams, each with a distinctly different concentration profile, it is inappropriate to simply sum up the flow fractions and then use the equation. Additionally, results from using a calibrated HSPF model on the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes indicate significant year to year variation in settling rates (some years negative settling some years positive settling) with the ten year model averages indicating that all impaired lakes are still actively settling nitrogen and phosphorus at about 19% of the total load entering each lake. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.053

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Application of DPVs Results in Overprotective Criteria The application of the proposed downstream protection values (DPVs) also results in overly protective criteria. The translation of DPVs for lakes into their tributaries needs to consider in-stream losses of phosphorus in order to avoid being overly protective. When EPA initially proposed DPVs for estuaries, in-stream losses of nitrogen were included. Results from the SPARROW model were used to estimate the fraction of the nitrogen flux from each tributary that is ultimately delivered to the estuary. This resulted in significantly higher DPVs for tributaries located a long distance from their terminus when compared to tributaries located nearer to the estuary. No similar consideration was given when translating DPVs of TP for lakes into their tributaries. Instead, EPA has proposed to apply the DPVs calculated where a tributary enters the lake as the applicable criterion for all stream segments upstream of the lake. This underestimates the loss of phosphorus that occurs between tributaries and lakes, and results in largely overprotective DPVs for tributaries located a significant distance upstream of their lake. EPA's Technical Support Document contains no discussion of the consideration of instream losses of phosphorus. The only justification is provided in the proposed rule itself, which states:

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3737Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

"The same processes that occur in lakes and affect lake water phosphorus concentration may also occur in streams that feed lakes and affect stream water phosphorus concentrations. These processes include sorption to stream bed sediments, uptake into biota, and release into the water column from decaying vegetation. EPA took into consideration these processes when deciding whether it would be appropriate to add a term to the model equation to account for phosphorus loss or uptake within the streams in deriving stream criteria for downstream lake protection. However, the net result of these processes is nutrient spiraling, whereby nutrients released upstream gradually propagate downstream at a rate slower than that of the moving water, and cycle into and out of the food chain in the process. Over the short term, the result may be water concentrations that decrease in the downstream direction. However, unlike for nitrogen, there are no long-term phosphorus net removal processes at work in streams. Phosphorus adsorbed to sediment particles is eventually carried downstream with the sediment, and phosphorus taken up by plants is eventually returned to the flowing water. Over the long term, upstream phosphorus inputs are in equilibrium with downstream phosphorus outputs." This justification in flawed. The description of relevant phosphorus processes ignores significant processes that result in settling of particulate phosphorus from the water column to sediments, and ultimate burial of this phosphorus by further sedimentation. This omission is magnified by the statement "there are no long-term phosphorus net removal processes at work in streams" and "Over the long term, upstream phosphorus inputs are in equilibrium with downstream phosphorus outputs." Deep burial of phosphorus is certainly a long-term process that removes phosphorus from streams, and results in downstream phosphorus output being significantly less than upstream input. Phosphorus has accumulated in the bottom sediments of South Florida canals (Diaz et al 2006), which suggests long-term P retention. Diaz and others inventoried Phosphorus in the EAA/WCA canals, and found that >80% of the stored P was chemically stable (sediment P fractionation techniques). In-stream TN levels can be reduced by denitrification processes, especially in the riparian zone (discussed by EPA document, attached), while long-term in-stream P reductions are mainly through sediment deposition (Reddy et al., 1998; Flaig and Reddy, 1995; Knight et al., 2003). 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.065

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Inappropriate Representation of the Settling/Loss Term

• USEPA has solicited comment on the application of the models used to calculate downstream protection values for lakes. The Technical Support Document provided with the proposed rule cited the fact that internal loadings to the water column may be substantial following a decrease in external loading, and indicated that this might serve as cause for the use of a zero or negative settling. USEPA should not change the settling/loss term for the equation used to calculate downstream protection values for lakes, for the reasons discussed below.

• The Vollenweider equation used to calculate the relationship between external phosphorus loading and in-lake concentrations is a steady-state model that is incapable of distinguishing how concentrations (or internal fluxes) change over time. Any assumptions used in the application of the model are therefore assumed to represent the long-term behavior of the lake. The response of internal sediment fluxes to load reductions is a time variable process. Internal fluxes will be near historical levels immediately after external load reductions occur, then decrease over time to achieve

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3738Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams equilibrium with the reduced load. The use of a zero or negative loss rate (as has been considered by EPA) would be an attempt to capture the initial portion of a time-variable response within a steady-state model framework. The reduced loss rate would reflect internal loading rates for a short period of time, but would be an inaccurate predictor of long-term behavior. Without considering how the internal load changes over time, this approach would result in downstream protection values much more stringent than necessary to provide long-term protection to the lake.

• It is appropriate to consider the lag time between the reduction of loads and the resulting internal flux of phosphorus, but only as part of a time variable modeling approach. The desire may exist to reduce external loads to a greater extent than what is necessary to achieve water quality targets over the long term, in order to shorten the length of time required to restore designated uses. This should only be implemented as part of a management approach that explicitly considers how this sediment flux component will change over time in response to decreases in external loading. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.107

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 2. Another serious issue with the Vollenweider (1976) model is the sedimentation term, which was developed using data from north temperate lakes in North America and Europe. Vollenweider provided a check for the sedimentation term, the concept of relative phosphorus residence time 1tr defined as: Original comment letter contains an equation. See original comment letter. For Lake Conway, (pi)r calculated from the third term is 0.053, but if it is calculated from the fourth term, the value is 0.231 (Blancher, 1979). According to Vollenweider (1976), this may indicate that accumulation of phosphorus in the sediments occurs at a greater rate than in the lakes he used in his study. This corroborates the findings of Shannon and Brezonik (1972a, 1972b) and of later studies (Baker et al., 1981) that Florida subtropical lake systems are able to assimilate more nutrients than would be expected for temperate systems. This result should not be surprising given that the higher temperatures in Florida lakes would explain why Florida systems process nutrients faster than temperate systems, and this has a dramatic effect on the sedimentation rate. 

# Response Comment IDs: 1434-1.001.026, 1481-1.001.027, 1673-1.001.012, 1715-3.001.065, 2233-1.001.107 Response: Thank you for your comments. EPA received numerous comments on the Vollenweider approach, including:

• �Use site-specific or regional information on lake morphology to derive settling rates

• �Lakes can have very variable settling rates, which makes Vollenweider inappropriate�

• �Vollenweider assumes inflows all have the same concentrations

• �Vollenweider is inappropriate because Florida lakes assimilate more nutrients, due to higher temperatures� The January 2010 proposed use of the Vollenweider model equation to ensure the protection of downstream lakes requires input of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3739Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams two lake-specific characteristics: the fraction of inflow due to streamflow and the hydraulic retention time. Because lake-specific input values may not always be readily available, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from streamflow and hydraulic retention time that could be used in those instances. EPA’s January 2010 proposed rule discussed the flexibility for the State to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for these two parameters, as long as the State determines that such inputs are appropriate and documents the site-specific values. Some commenters felt that that the Vollenweider equation was overly simplistic and that it does not include the necessary factors to account for physical, hydrologic, chemical, and biological processes necessary to determine protective criteria. Several commenters also suggested the need for TN values to protect downstream lakes that are nitrogen-limited (such as many of the lakes in the phosphorus-rich areas of the State). Comments included a recommendation to use models that can better represent site-specific conditions, such as BATHTUB, which EPA is finalizing in this rule. EPA’s August 2010 supplemental notice requested comment on using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes, allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available that would use the lake criteria themselves as criteria for upstream waters flowing into the lake. EPA has finalized an approach that provides several options for setting DPVs at the pour point, where waters from inflowing streams enter a lake. These options include using BATHTUB, which can represent site-specific conditions relevant to a particular lake (such as sediment resuspension and settling or lake morphology), or some other defensible model, and when data are not sufficient to apply BATHTUB, the rule specifies other approaches based on using ambient conditions as criteria or applying the lake nutrient criteria at the pour point (see final rule and preamble).

Comment ID: 1715-3.001.053

Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA continues to believe that in the long term, in flowing waters, we cannot assume net loss of phosphorus. As pointed out by the commenter, removal of phosphorus is by permanent burial in sediment. Non-flowing waters, such as lakes, reservoirs, canals, and estuaries, all can be permanent sinks of sediment and phosphorus. The examples of TP loss cited by the commenters are all in canals, and EPA agrees that canals can be TP sinks. Reservoirs in rivers and chains-of-lakes can be TP sinks. In streams, sediment and TP are deposited in stream bars and banks, and they are also resuspended and transported further during storms. Unless a stream is demonstrated to be permanently aggrading, one cannot assume permanent sediment and TP loss. This issue may be moot because the BATHTUB model can make use of measured nutrient inflow concentrations or loadings. 

# III.C.6.Q.6 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 6 Comment ID 0933.001.004

Author Name: Collins J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3740Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: 5. EPA also requests comments on whether and how to address direct surface runoff into the lake. Where this input is substantial and land use around the lake indicates that phosphorus input is likely, EPA believes it may be appropriate to include this water volume contribution as part of the fraction of inflow considered to be streamflow to be protective and consistent with the assumption of no loading from sources other than streamflow. EPA specifically requests comment on use of the Land Development Index (LDI) as an indicator of how to treat this inflow, examination of regional groundwater phosphorus levels to see if a zero TP input from this source is appropriate, and potential development of regionally- specific preset values as inputs to the equation. In addition, EPA requests comment on the potential to develop a corollary approach for nitrogen. EPA should develop thresholds and % to indicate WHEN inflow becomes necessary as a factor. At what percentage of streamflow does the inflow become significant? 

# Comment ID 1434-1.001.027

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors T24 III C(6)(a) The HSWCD supports the suggestion to add direct surface runoff, particularly from non-point sources, as indicated by the appropriate Land Development Index or other appropriate index that models imperviousness immediately surrounding a given lake. Downstream protective values applied to stream flows are rendered meaningless without appropriate accounting for non-point source flows. This should be applied to both total phosphorus and total nitrogen. {p, 4199, comment requested} 

# Comment ID 1481-1.001.028

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department III C(6)(a) Highlands County supports the suggestion to add direct surface runoff, particularly from nonpoint sources, as indicated by the appropriate Land Development Index or other appropriate index that models imperiousness immediately surrounding a given lake. Downstream protective values applied to stream flows are rendered meaningless without appropriate accounting for non-point source flows. This should be applied to both total phosphorus and total nitrogen. {P. 4199, comment requested} 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.013

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3741Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Question:

• Whether need to address direct surface runoff FDEP Response: Based on the lakes above, direct surface runoff averaged 27.6 % (6% to 60%) of the total nutrient budget. Based on our experience there is an excellent likelihood that sources other than stream based sources could be significant. 

# Response Comment IDs: 0933.001.004, 1434-1.001.027, 1673-1.001.013, 1481-1.001.028 Response: Comments included:

• �EPA should develop thresholds and percent to indicate when inflow becomes necessary as a factor

• �Include direct runoff

• �Provided information on amount of runoff Thank you for your comments. The January 2010 proposed use of the Vollenweider model equation to ensure the protection of downstream lakes requires input of two lake-specific characteristics: the fraction of inflow due to stream-flow and the hydraulic retention time. Because lake-specific input values may not always be readily available, EPA provided alternative preset values for percent contribution from stream-flow and hydraulic retention time that could be used in those instances. EPA’s January 2010 proposed rule discussed the flexibility for the State to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for these two parameters, as long as the State determines that such inputs are appropriate and documents the site-specific values. Some commenters felt that that the Vollenweider equation was overly simplistic and that it does not include the necessary factors to account for physical, hydrologic, chemical, and biological processes necessary to determine protective criteria. Several commenters also suggested the need for TN values to protect downstream lakes that are nitrogen-limited (such as many of the lakes in the phosphorus-rich areas of the State). Comments included a recommendation to use models that can better represent site-specific conditions, such as BATHTUB, which EPA is finalizing in this rule. EPA’s August 2010 supplemental notice requested comment on using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes (downstream protection values or DPVs), allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available. EPA has decided not to use the Vollenweider equation for deriving DPVs. EPA has finalized an approach that provides several options for setting DPVs at the pour point, where waters from inflowing streams enter a lake. Where sufficient data and information are available, DPVs can be established using BATHTUB, which can represent site-specific conditions relevant to a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3742Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams particular lake (such as streamflow and groundwater contributions to a lake, and differences in retention times). BATHTUB also provides a similar or greater degree of site-specificity than the Dillon-Rigler approach. The rule also specifically allows FDEP or EPA to determine that use of another scientifically defensible modeling approach will result in the protection of downstream lakes. Where sufficient data and information are not available to apply a modeling approach, the rule specifies other approaches based on whether the downstream lake is attaining the lake criteria or whether the downstream is either not assessed or is impaired. (see final rule and preamble). Both the BATHTUB and WASP approaches allow inclusion of nonpoint runoff sources of TP and TN, and use of these models would address the question of whether direct runoff of TP or TN into a lake contribute substantively to changes in nutrient concentrations. 

# III.C.6.Q.7 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 7 Comment ID 1673-1.001.014

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Question:

• Specifically requested comments on

• Use of the Land Development Index (LDI) as an indicator of how to treat inflow, FDEP Response: We did not find where the document provides the details of how the LDI would be used (only that EPA would use the LDI as an indicator of the relative contribution from direct surface water runoff into a lake). If substantial local runoff was predicted and the LDI points to TP as having the potential to be elevated, EPA would add this source to the "fraction inflow" input to the Lake equation. We assume that EPA would look at event mean codes (EMCs) for stormwater runoff and percent impervious, and increase the fraction inflow accordingly. In our experience, water from local runoff, precipitation, groundwater etc, all have concentrations that are different from (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) the major inlet stream concentrations. The EPA approach incorrectly assumes all inflow sources would have the same concentration as the inlet stream. The Vollenweider equation is only valid for a single source stream or where all sources have the same concentration. Question:

• examination of regional groundwater phosphorus levels to see if a zero TP input from this source is appropriate, and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3743Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams FDEP Response: Based on our experience, groundwater could be between 0.06 and 0.5 mg/L TP (outside of Bone Valley). If groundwater contribution is large (as is the case for many lakes), then it could be a significant source of TP. If groundwater is a significant source, and the concentration is not the same as the stream concentration, then we would need a different equation to relate this loading to the in-lake concentration. Question:

• potential development of regionally-specific preset values as inputs to the equation FDEP Response: We think this could be developed in some regions (with lots of data) and we already have regional specific values for other things like EMCs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3744Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Response

Comment ID: 1673-1.001.014 Response: EPA acknowledges that FDEP has data to help establish regional values for groundwater TP and EMCs in selected regions. These values will be important in applying BATHTUB, WASP, or other scientifically defensible modeling approach that either FDEP or EPA determines is appropriate, for calculating DPVs, as necessary. 

# III.C.6.Q.8 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 8 Comment ID 1673-1.001.015

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Question:

• Potential to develop a corollary approach for nitrogen FDEP Response: We think the same approach would not work because nitrogen has different possible sources like nfixation. In studies of N-fixation for Lake Jesup, nitrogen fixation accounted for over 50% of the TN budget. Given Florida's high natural TP levels, there exists a significant possibility that nitrogen sources other than the main inlet stream are at play. Like phosphorus, unless all of the various sources of nitrogen have the same concentration, using the fraction stream inflow approach to predict stream concentration is not appropriate. 

# Response

Comment ID: 1673-1.001.015 Response: EPA agrees with comment and has established in this final rule methods to derive DPVs with respect to both total nitrogen and total phosphorus. 

# III.C.6.Q.9 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 9 Comment ID 1352-1.001.056

Author Name: Herr M.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3745Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Polk County Downstream Protection of Lakes

• EPA has specifically allowed for the generation of site-specific downstream protective values for streams that deliver flow into Florida lakes and it is recommended that site specific information on the proportion of streamflow delivered, retention times, and the contribution and exchange of groundwater in these lakes be considered prior to implementing any listing process based on the downstream protective values. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.092

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners EPA has specifically allowed for the generation of site specific downstream protective values for streams that deliver flow into Florida lakes and it is recommended that site specific information on the proportion of streamflow delivered, retention times and the contribution and exchange of groundwater in these lakes be considered prior to implementing any listing process based on the downstream protective values. Many of Florida's lakes have significant surface water, groundwater interactions that can alternatively contribute to and account for loss of TP in the lake itself. Given the potential burden of the BMAP as a result of TMDL development based on these criteria, it is imperative that these criteria be both developed and implemented in a manner that does not pose unnecessary burden on local governments or private industries as a result of uncertainties in the estimation of the true protective value for these waterbodies. 

# Comment ID 1476-2.001.075

Author Name: Wehle C. Organization: South Florida Water Management District H. Site Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) Were Designed to Address Unique or Unusual Situations, and Should Not Be Used to Overcome Weakly Supported Regional Criteria EPA proposes the option of developing SSACs as a way to address the technical uncertainties of the proposed regional criteria are somewhat addressed by the. However, the implication of such an approach is difficult to assess without a detailed estimate of the number of SSACs that would likely be required. If the number is very large, which is likely given the lack of dose-response relationship and the proportion of reference sites that do not meet the criteria (see FDEP comment J, Tables 2 and 3), then it may be more efficient to adopt site-specific criteria from the start. For instance, the District supports the adoption of TMDLs previously set and approved by USEPA and FDEP as protective of a given water body as automatic SSACs requiring no further submissions under the rule. SSACs should not be used to support regional or statewide numbers without a detailed estimate of the expected numbers of SSACs. SSACs are costly and time consuming, and can be contentious in the context of stringent criteria. They are intended to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3746Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams apply to unique and unusual cases, and should not be used to supplement weakly supported regional or statewide criteria. 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.007

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection There are significant site specific factors and technical difficulties in projecting necessary phosphorus concentrations upstream into a watershed. Attenuation in streams is very difficult to generally quantify and depend on many site specific factors. The existence of intervening lakes and wetlands changes fate and transport of phosphorus. Riparian wetlands are also a complicating factor. Stream slope, flow, and the existence of natural aquatic vegetation also play a considerable role. All of these factors add up to conclude that phosphorus fate and transport is a very site specific analysis and cannot be accurately captured or assumed when applying criteria to streams. 

# Comment ID 1673-1.001.016

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Question:

• Whether there should be specific allowance for alternative lake-specific models (BATHTUB), and whether best facilitated via SSACs FDEP Response: Alternative models that could be applied to lakes with lake specific data will provide the most accurate results. Sophisticated models like WASP have the highest likelihood to produce accurate results if lake specific input variables are used. EPA should consider making this type of modeling approach the rule and the more erroneous formulas the exception. The Department is only interested in implementing scientifically justified water quality standards. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.108

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 3. Extensive work by Florida limnologists (Baker et al,. 1981, Huber et al., 1982) has shown that the modified DillonRigler relationship provides a better fit for predicting both phosphorus and nitrogen. These studies are well known and have been cited for more than two decades. The modifications were necessary because these studies showed that the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3747Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Vollenweider models did not account properly for the higher productivity (per unit phosphorus and nitrogen) in Florida's shallow and more highly colored lakes present. 

# Response

Comment ID: 1476-2.001.075 Response: Thank you for your comment. EPA recognizes the natural heterogeneity of Florida’s waterbodies, but disagrees that the Agency’s numeric nutrient criteria are too broad-based to be applicable to Florida’s waters. EPA reminds commenters that EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria are derived to account for the natural variability exhibited in Florida's lakes and flowing waters. EPA relied on an extensive amount of Florida-specific data and technical analyses to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria. Florida established the designated uses which are applicable to Florida's waters, are consistent with the Clean Water Act, and are set to manage clean water program objectives for Florida’s waters affected by EPA's rule. EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria establish water quality levels for nutrients that are necessary to support these uses. EPA agrees that, in some circumstances, site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC) may be warranted to account for site-specific conditions. SSAC may be appropriate when additional scientific consideration can bring added precision or accuracy to express the necessary level or concentration of a water quality parameter that is protective of the designated use. EPA refers the commenter tothe preamble of the final rule which discusses the federal Site-Specific Alternative Criteria process, in particular section V.C SiteSpecific Alternative Criteria, which explains a specific procedure, finalized in federal rule, for EPA adoption of site-specific alternative criteria (SSAC). EPA provides clarification on the roles and responsibilities of the Agency and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in administering this procedure, clarification regarding FDEP’s current regulatory SSAC process and how this process differs from EPA’s federal SSAC procedure, and the Agency’s authority to enact this procedure. EPA also provides additional guidance for a federal SSAC submittal. EPA notes that FDEP retains the authority to move forward with its own rulemaking process at any time to establish a State SSAC process for nutrients, or other regulatory relief mechanisms, and may submit such mechanisms to EPA for review under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. EPA disagrees with comments that request to use existing TMDL targets as SSAC without submitting those targets to EPA for approval as new or revised water quality standards. Commenters have requested that nutrient targets developed through the TMDL process (existing FDEP nutrient TMDLs that have been approved by EPA) serve as site-specific alternative numeric nutrient criteria. EPA agrees that TMDL targets have the potential to serve has SSAC. However, in light of the substantial information analyzed in conjunction with these rulemaking, and to ensure that a proper process of notice and comment is undertaken, EPA believes that the federal SSAC procedure in the final rule is the appropriate mechanism and means of incorporating TMDL targets into the federal WQS for Florida waters.

Comment ID: 1352-1.001.056, 1355-2.001.092, 1673-1.001.007, 1673-1.001.016, 2233-1.001.108 Response: Thank you for your comments. The January 2010 proposed use of the Vollenweider model equation to ensure the protection of downstream lakes requires input of two lake-specific characteristics: the fraction of inflow due to streamflow and the hydraulic retention time. Because lake-specific input values may not always be readily available, EPA provided alternative preset

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3748Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams values for percent contribution from streamflow and hydraulic retention time that could be used in those instances. EPA’s January 2010 proposed rule discussed the flexibility for the State to use site-specific inputs to the Vollenweider equation for these two parameters, as long as the State determines that such inputs are appropriate and documents the site-specific values. Some commenters felt that that the Vollenweider equation was overly simplistic and that it does not include the necessary factors to account for physical, hydrologic, chemical, and biological processes necessary to determine protective criteria. Several commenters also suggested the need for TN values to protect downstream lakes that are nitrogen-limited (such as many of the lakes in the phosphorus-rich areas of the State). Comments included a recommendation to use models that can better represent site-specific conditions, such as BATHTUB, which EPA is finalizing in this rule. EPA’s August 2010 supplemental notice requested comment on using the BATHTUB model in place of the Vollenweider equation for deriving both TP and TN criteria to protect downstream lakes (downstream protection values or DPVs), allowing the use of alternative models under certain circumstances, and providing for an alternative approach to protect downstream lakes when limited data are available. EPA has decided not to use the Vollenweider equation for deriving DPVs. EPA has finalized an approach that provides several options for setting DPVs at the pour point, where waters from inflowing streams enter a lake. Where sufficient data and information are available, DPVs can be established using BATHTUB, which can represent site-specific conditions relevant to a particular lake (such as streamflow and groundwater contributions to a lake, and differences in retention times). BATHTUB also provides a similar or greater degree of site-specificity than the Dillon-Rigler approach. The rule also specifically allows FDEP or EPA to determine that use of another scientifically defensible modeling approach will result in the protection of downstream lakes. Where sufficient data and information are not available to apply a modeling approach, the rule specifies other approaches based on whether the downstream lake is attaining the lake criteria or whether the downstream is either not assessed or is impaired. (see final rule and preamble). 

# III.C.6.B - DOWNSTREAM PROTECTION OF ESTUARIES Comment ID 0606-1.001.002

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium Although the Tampa Bay NMC recognizes the commitment by EPA to develop numeric nutrient criteria for allwaterbodies in the State of Florida and that a general approach may be warranted for areas where more detailed, sitespecific information is lacking, the Tampa Bay NMC contends that EPA's general approach is not applicable to the Tampa Bay estuary for the following reasons:

• EPA's draft approach for determining protective loads to downstream estuaries does not take into account the existing condition of the downstream water. Tampa Bay is currently maintaining full aquatic life protection and uses as evidenced by the maintenance and expansion of healthy seagrass beds, the estuarine-dependent fauna that inhabit them, and the critical phytoplanktonbased food web. Further nutrient reductions are not needed within the estuary, and efforts to achieve them would direct scarce resources away from more environmentally beneficial activities where true nutrient impairments exist.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3749Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 0631.001.003

Author Name: DeGrove B. Organization: The EPA proposed downstream protective values would require a loading reductions for every estuaries in Florida. But not every estuary needs loading reduction. Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor all have estuary programs funded by EPA that have determined that their estuaries are healthy and need to be protected not restored. They do not require nutrient reductions in this estuary. In fact, Tampa Bay has a total maximum daily load of MDL adopted by EPA as protected for the Bay, and yet, EPA is proposing through its downstream protective value a loading of less than half of what currently goes to Tampa Bay. To further emphasize the concerns of proposed protective values, analysis by DEP indicates that 80 percent of Florida's most pristine streams would be deemed impaired based on these downstream protective values. Those are the most pristine streams in the state. 

# Comment ID 0642.001.004

Author Name: Bennett A. Organization: City of Clearwater I feel this money that would be imposed on just the wastewater side would be better spent on the nonpoint sources we have identified as needing further work, and I would request that the EPA either acknowledge that grizzle figure and existing total nitrogen and total phosphorous loads for Tampa Bay are to protective downstream loadings or wait to determine that until the estuary nutrient criterias are related down the line. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0652.001.004

Author Name: Janicki T. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium The premise that you have in establishing the downstream protective values is that all of the estuaries in Florida are either at or above their similar capacities. We have a problem with that, especially in Tampa Bay, and you'll also see in Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor that that's not necessarily true; that there is not a proven indication that a reduction load is necessary to maintain the improvement and the restoration of sea grasses in each of these areas. You know, lastly, we feel that we've done what you have tried to do. 14 years ago we established loading estimates, and these are those values that we're proposing to you to be used as numeric nutrient criteria. So our request is that you acknowledge that the existing TN and TP loads to Tampa Bay is downstream protective loads in the final Florida Lakes and Florida Flowing Waters Rule. Thank you.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3750Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0653.001.004

Author Name: Blancher II E. Organization: Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration LLC on behalf of CF Industries Estuaries are highly diverse physiographic units, and the application of a uniform criteria derived from a single model for all systems in Florida is unscientific and unsupportable. The high secondary productivity in some estuaries not reflected in its planktonic productivity, i.e., high Chlorophyl a is driven by high nutrient load, particularly the nutrient content of the trial nitrogen and phosphorous from Florida's extensive wetlands. The assumption that this high nutrient load is necessarily bad is a misguided regulatory construct. 

# Comment ID 0662.001.005

Author Name: Spitzer K. Organization: Florida Stormwater Association One comment on science, very briefly, and we'll follow with some written comments to you. Many parts of the rules that we have suggestions and concerns with, but primarily the use of the SPARROW model is a main concern. And even the scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey have expressed concerns to DEP over the use of that model in Florida. It's designed for a large, and when I say large, I mean very large watersheds, not for the State of Florida. 

# Comment ID 0668.001.003

Author Name: Mann D. Organization: Utility Council of the American Water Works Association I think, basically, one of the messages I've gotten is that the SPARROW method just won't fly in Florida. It's just not -­ it's not the right model for this problem at all. 

# Comment ID 0681.001.003

Author Name: Tilton A. Organization: Third issue I don't quite understand -- and there are parts of it I do understand and there were parts of I don't understand -- and that is different portions of values from different portions of the state. And I realize that natural deposits of phosphate materials maybe part of that answer, but when the Peace River enters the Gulf of Mexico, not directly but indirectly through Charlotte Harbor it's right next to the Caloosahatchee, and phosphorous level is about six and a half times different. And I don't quite understand how it's different to the Gulf of Mexico when the red tide in the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3751Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Gulf of Mexico is put towards too much nutrients. So I'm not how the Gulf of Mexico knows or if it comes out of the Caloosahatchee or if it comes from the Imperial as 42 parts per billion if I'm reading it correctly in the draft rule. So I've got three rivers roughly within about 60 or 80 miles of each other, and we've got 40 to 749 parts per billion, I don't fully understand how the Gulf of Mexico knows the difference. 

# Comment ID 0707.001.002

Author Name: Greening H. Organization: Tampa Bay Estuary Program I'm speaking as a convenor of the Consortium today specifically on downstream protective loads for Tampa Bay. First of all, I thank you for including the concept of appropriate downstream protective values in the draft rules. These values are important for the continued recovery and maintenance of the designated uses and aquatic life in Tampa Bay and other estuaries. 

# Comment ID 0717.001.003

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Manatee County Natural Resources Department However, we are encouraged that EPA, quote, is interested in feedback regarding site-specific analysis for particular estuaries that should be used instead of this general approach for establishing final values.We hope we can convince you today that this is the case for the three aforementioned estuaries of national concern.



# Comment ID 0717.001.004

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Manatee County Natural Resources Department The National Estuary Program was established in 1987 by amendments to the Clean Water Act to identify, restore, protect nationally significant estuaries in the United States. The focus of the program is not only to improve water quality in the system but also focuses on maintaining the integrity of the whole system, that is, its chemical, physical and biological properties, as well as its economic, recreational and aesthetic values. This is a common stakeholder development and implementation of Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans, or CCMPs. Watershed

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3752Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams managers involved with the development and implementation of these CCMPs recognize the importance of evaluating all nutrient inputs to the system, including atmospheric deposition, groundwater, point and nonpoint source surface waters, springs, et cetera. Therefore, downstream protection evaluations are integral in the development of these estuary management plans. 

# Comment ID 0717.001.005

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Manatee County Natural Resources Department EPA's draft approach for determining criteria for protection of downstream estuaries does not take into account the existing condition of the water body and presumes that all estuaries in Florida are impaired and require nutrient load reductions. This initial assumption is flawed. For example, Tampa Bay is currently maintaining full aquatic life protection and uses, as evidenced by the maintenance and expansion of the seagrass beds, estuarine fauna and the phytoplankton-based food web. 

# Comment ID 0741.001.004

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa The imposition of broadbrush regulations do not recognize the achievements of areas such as Tampa Bay and, in particular, the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium's participants' compliance with its Federal TMDL and implementation of its reasonable assurance document, which has proven to achieve the restoration and protection of Tampa Bay. Why must an area such as Tampa Bay defend itself by seeking a site-specific criteria designation when actually the regulation should be implemented in reverse, that is, require those specific areas referenced by speakers such as EarthJustice to restore and protect those specific areas. These standards seemingly punish the successful responsible actions of a public-private partnership such as the Nitrogen Management Consortium that has generated decades of data which supports what the eye can see, that being a cleaner bay,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3753Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams regrowth of seagrass and improved habitat. 

# Comment ID 0795.001.002

Author Name: McCarthy L. Organization: Lykes Brothers I'm going to be jumping all over the place because I wanted to get a couple comments in on some technical issues and then hit on the economics. I don't think that the model you used is appropriate. You've used a model that the developers of the model, the USGS and your own science advisory committee have expressed concerns over the way that you've applied it. The model was calibrated for use at a regional scale, not for use in a single state watershed, and using it in Florida for site specific determinations of downstream protection values I think is inappropriate. 

# Comment ID 0816.001.004

Author Name: Perry M. Organization: Florida Oceanographic Society Right now there are like 28 tributaries that enter into the St. Lucie Estuary. These are streams, creeks, those kind of waters, and we're wondering if those criteria are going to have to be met at the stream conditions. Sometimes the discharges from the lake into the C44 canal which comes into the St. Lucie get in excess of 4.6 billion gallons a day. Through all the canals we dump 1.7 billion gallons a day to the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico. That's a tragic waste of just fresh water resource alone, much less to say what it does on the way out. When we get down to looking at the loading factors, and in St. Lucie Estuary from the canal alone, C44, we've got 83 metric tons of phosphorous annually average coming in, and also about a 1,008 metric tons of nitrogen annually. That's three times of any other of the six watershed portions of that -- components of the watershed that enter into the st. Lucie. We need to look at not just concentrations, but I note that you quote the protective loading rate which is calculated to look at kind of downstream protected values. Those are going to be important kind of terms as you move along in this process, and that ties into the term that you've indicated that you're going to derive some sight specific alternative criteria or allow the state to develop those site specific alternative criteria, and that leads to whether the state or local governments can have a more restrictive water quality standard in order to achieve it. 

# Comment ID 0878-1.001.001

Author Name: Higginbotham A. Organization: Tampa Bay Estuary Program As members of the Policy Board of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, and as elected officials of Manatee, Hillsborough and Pinellas counties and the cities of Clearwater, St. Petersburg and Tampa, we strongly endorse the request of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (see attached Consortium letter) that EPA accept and finalize the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3754Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Consortium's TN and TP loads as the protective loads used in determining downstream protective values (DPVs) for inland waters and as the Estuarine Nutrient Criteria for the Tampa Bay estuary. 

# Comment ID 0878-1.001.003

Author Name: Higginbotham A. Organization: Tampa Bay Estuary Program An EPA representative has been working with the Tampa Bay Estuary Program as a member of our Policy Board since the program's inception in 1990. We look forward to continuing our long and productive partnership with EPA, and to your positive response to the Consortium's request to accept the Consortium's TN and TP loads as Estuarine Nutrient Criteria for the Tampa Bay estuary. If you have questions or comments, please contact Holly Greening, TBEP Executive Director, at hgreening@tbep.org or 727-893-2765. 

# Comment ID 0912-1.001.003

Author Name: Davis T. Organization: Eastern Associated Terminals Company LLC It is important for EPA to understand the active involvement of both the public and private stakeholders in and around Tampa Bay. Working together for many years, the NMC and its members have been studying water quality issues in the Bay and developing workable approaches for improving water quality. For our part, Eastern has been committed to improving the surface water quality of Tampa Bay. We have completed a wide range of projects at our facility, at total cost of over $2 million, over the last two decades. These projects have resulted in significant reductions in the facility's nutrient loadings to Tampa Bay. We believe these projects, when taken together with projects completed by other industry stakeholders in the area, have resulted in significant improvements to the nearby Bay waters, and have contributed to the recovery of Hillsborough Bay and the greater Tampa Bay ecosystem. We would highlight the following:

• Enclosure of all outside conveyor belts, including transfer points, used to transport product through the facility and out to the ship containers. These enclosures reduce spillage of material to impervious surfaces, thus significantly reducing storm water run-off potential.

• Installation of stainless steel and aluminum pans undemeath the entire shiploader.

• Enclosure of the tail end of conveyor # S with a metal building and concrete walls to eliminate this area as a potential source.

• Enclosure of 2/3/7 and 9/4 transfer points with a metal building and concrete floor to eliminate this area as a source.

• Regrading and sodding of swales and berm adjacent to the ship transfer areas. These improvements allow for retention and percolation of sheet flow across the site to reduce rainwater runoff entering Tampa Bay. These improvements also reduce rill erosion, which in turn reduces the discharge of any sediment into the Bay.

• Planting of native vegetation in the north and south ditches. Those ditches receive a majority of the runoff from the site. These ditches are also augmented by a weir, which allows for increased retention and filtering time before discharge to the Bay. These ditches are covered with 98% desirable herbaceous species, including pennywort,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3755Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams arrowhead, dayflower, bulrush, and paragrass. Regular maintenance of these areas has kept invasive and non-native vegetation to a minimum, while maintaining a high level of filtering capability. As a result, birds, such as marsh wren, boat-tailed grackle, and red-winged blackbird, utilize these ditches on a regular basis and have been observed exhibiting breeding behavior.

• Repaving and maintenance of the parking area which has minimized particulate discharges off-site.

• Installation of a concrete pad in front of the spill shed which contains captured fertilizer for recycling.

• Regular cleanup and sweeping of the offloading station area.

• Regular clean-up and maintenance of the site is performed as needed. The staff is trained to keep up with daily housekeeping duties and to promptly remove any spillage of product. This attention to detail significantly minimizes the potential for discharge of material through storm water run-off. 

# Comment ID 0913-1.001.003

Author Name: Kelly E. Organization: Florida Native Plant Society Our support notwithstanding, we are concerned that Downstream Protection Values, or DPVs, are proposed for adoption during this stage of the process. Setting of DPVs is fundamental to the protection of downstream estuaries. However, it is difficult to understand how DPVs can be adopted prior to the setting of numeric criteria for the estuaries themselves, which is scheduled to occur in 2011 as part of the second phase of establishing numeric nutrient criteria. We strongly recommend that the adoption of DPVs be conducted concurrently with the 2011 establishment of nutrient standards for estuaries. This would expand the opportunity for implementing estuary-specific criteria based on the considerable research that has been conducted in association with the water management districts' Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) programs and the EPA's own National Estuary Program. The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, working in partnership with the Southwest Florida Water Management District's Tampa Bay SWIM program, is an outstanding example of the significant improvements in water quality that have been achieved through current and ongoing efforts; their research and knowledge of the Tampa Bay system should be allowed to guide the establishment of numeric nutrient standards for that water body to the greatest extent possible, and for the DPVs associated with that system. This approach should be employed wherever estuary-specific standards can be established on the basis of previous research and existing data. Thank you for considering our concerns. We are confident the proposed action will help produce improvements in water quality and aquatic habitat conditions throughout Florida. 

# Comment ID 0915-1.001.003

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. 3. The USGS has stated that the model used by EPA, which was developed by the USGS, was not developed nor calibrated for streams with significant groundwater contribution and is therefore not applicable to NVOC.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3756Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 0915-1.001.005

Author Name: Stephens G. Organization: The Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa County Regional Sewer Board, Inc. 5. The estimates of in-stream nitrogen losses in the model used by EPA are too low. 

# Comment ID 0933.001.007

Author Name: Collins J. Organization: 8. EPA's approach to developing nutrient criteria for streams to protect downstream estuaries in Florida involves two separate steps. The first step is determining the average annual nutrient load that can be delivered to an estuary without impairing designated uses. This is the protective load. The second step is determining nutrient concentrations throughout the network of streams and rivers that discharge into an estuary that, if achieved, are expected to result in nutrient loading to estuaries that do not exceed the protective load. These concentrations, called ``downstream protection values'' or DPVs, depend on the protective load for the receiving estuary and account for nutrient losses within streams from natural biological processes. In this way, higher DPVs may be appropriate in stream reaches where a significant fraction of either TN or TP is permanently removed within the reach before delivery to downstream receiving waters. Law of uninteneded consequences. In their present forms the current EPA nutrient limits could and will cause a migration to upstream areas and relatively pristine lakes. EPA proposes to limit the total amount of nutrients in receiving waters... and not limit the intake vs discharge levels at any site. This means the first operations to access clean waters get to use up ALL the available nutirent thresholds/limits. You create an economic incentive to move dirty operations to clean areas. EPA should set limits on intake and discharge levels of PH and N at any site and still retain the overall DPV. That way there is a geographic neutral impact on locating plant operations. Do upstream owners have first crack at polluting and using the protective load balance up? Does a quirk of geography mena that an owner or business thus has an UNDUE and unfair burden due to the rule formation? Are you creating an "unintended consequence" of shifting dirty operations to pristine areas? 

# Comment ID 0933.001.011

Author Name: Collins J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3757Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Thus Fl geography is fairly unique among the states. Most states have steeper elevation changes and flowing rivers dominate the hydrography. Proposed use of USGS model should be examined since it is based on topographies with much steeper gradients. 

# Comment ID 0937.001.001

Author Name: Garrity R. Organization: Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission The EPC's water quality monitoring data has provided the essential data necessary to the development a sound, scientific process and technically defensible basis for protecting Tampa Bay. The EPC fully concurs with the technical findings of the adopted nutrient management strategy that existing TN and TP loads to Tampa Bay are correct and appropriate to support full aquatic life protection and designated uses. At the present level, TN and TP loads to Tampa Bay provide an appropriate balance of adequate water clarity for healthy and expanding seagrass beds, and adequate phytoplankton production to support the bay's fish and wildlife populations. 

# Comment ID 0937.001.002

Author Name: Garrity R. Organization: Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission The position of EPC is that the nutrient loads approved by EPA and FDEP as regulatory goals for Tampa Bay are more appropriate than EPA's draft downstream protective values for the Tampa Bay estuary. These approved nutrient loads provide for the full aquatic life protection and support for all designated uses in the estuary as put forth in the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, we think that a more prudent approach by EPA is to finalize the downstream protective values for flowing waters in the Tampa Bay watershed as part of the second phase of this rulemaking process. The downstream protective values should be developed in coordination with the proposal and finalization of numeric criteria for estuarine and coastal waters that is anticipated to occur in 2011. In addition to meeting established water quality targets, Tampa Bay is currently maintaining full aquatic life protection and uses as evidenced by the maintenance and expansion of healthy seagrass beds, the estuarine-dependent fauna that inhabit them, and the critical phytoplankton-based food web. As proposed, EPA's draft approach for determining protective loads to downstream estuaries, i.e. Tampa Bay, does not take into account the existing condition of the downstream water. Our view is that nutrient loading is adequately addressed in existing bay strategies as outlined herin and that we must not direct scarce resources away from more environmentally beneficial activities where true nutrient impairments exist. We request EPA consider and accept this technically rational alternative nutrient criteria for Tampa Bay, that in our judgment, more properly addresses protection of downstream water quality to fully attain and maintain the State's

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3758Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams designated uses in the Tampa Bay estuary. 

# Comment ID 0950.001.001

Author Name: Glicksberg D. Organization: Hillsborough County Public Works Department EPA's proposed approach for determining Downstream Protective Loads does not take into account the existing condition of the downstream water. Through the work of the Nitrogen Management Consortium, current management actions have effected significant water quality improvements in Tampa Bay, and have maintained Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus loads at levels that provide full aquatic life protection in the Bay, and allow it to meet its designated use. Further nutrient reductions are not needed, and efforts to achieve them would direct scarce resources away from higher priority load reductions needed for truly impaired waters. 

# Comment ID 0950.001.004

Author Name: Glicksberg D. Organization: Hillsborough County Public Works Department For these reasons, we urge the EPA to utilize existing Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus loads to Tampa Bay as the Downstream Protective Loads for the Tampa Bay region in the final rule for Water Quality Standards for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters ; Or, as an alternative: We request that the EPA delay the determination of Downstream Protective Loads for Tampa Bay until such time that Estuarine Numeric Nutrient Criteria are finalized. 

# Comment ID 0951.001.001

Author Name: Berry A. Organization: Hillsborough County Water Resource Services EPA's proposed approach for determining Downstream Protective Loads does not take into account the existing condition of the downstream water. Through the work of the Nitrogen Management Consortium, current management actions have effected significant water quality improvements in Tampa Bay, and have maintained Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus loads at levels that provide full aquatic life protection in the Bay, and allow it to meet its designated use. Further nutrient reductions are not needed, and efforts to achieve them would direct scarce resources away from higher priority load reductions needed for truly impaired waters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3759Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0951.001.011

Author Name: Berry A. Organization: Hillsborough County Water Resource Services As an alternative, we request that the EPA delay the determination of Downstream Protective Loads for Tampa Bay until such time that the Estuarine Numeric Nutrient Criteria are finalized. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0975.001.002

Author Name: Wanio R. Organization: Tampa Port Authority The Port is a member of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium. We have participated in and fully support the efforts by both groups to adopt numeric nutrient targets to restore and protect seagrass beds and restore environmental conditions in the estuarine segments of Tampa Bay. These resource-based targets were developed using empirical and mechanistic models and a long-term water quality database initiated in 1974. Numeric management goals for seagrass acreage, and numeric targets for light attenuation, chlorophyll-a concentrations, and the Total Nitrogen (TN) loads necessary to meet and maintain water quality targets that protect the designated use were adopted. A multi-pronged management strategy was implemented to meet these targets. Phosphorus was determined conclusively to not represent a limiting nutrient in the estuarine bay segments of Tampa Bay. 

# Comment ID 1009.001.011

Author Name: * * Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: EPA proposes to use the South Atlantic Gulf and Tennessee (SAGT) version of the USGS SPARROW model to determine the downstream protection value (DPV) for total nitrogen in Florida estuaries. EPA questions the use of this method for total phosphorus in estuaries, yet many of the Florida estuaries are phosphorus limited. This comment reflects also on its applicability to the control of total nitrogen as well. Furthermore, the model uses only 4 classes of nitrogen inflows: fertilizer, manure, urban point source and atmospheric. Fertilizer and manure were estimated "from county level fertilizer sales, census of agriculture and population estimates." From EPA's TMDL website, sources of pollutant loading to national waters (not all nutrient related) include (in order of square miles threatened for estuaries and embayments) : municipal discharges/sewage, atmospheric deposition, unknown, natural/wildlife, industrial, agricultural, hydromodification, other, habitat alteration, urban-related runoff, unspecified nonpoint sources, resource extraction, recreational boating and a host of others with much smaller impacts.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3760Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Recent studies of Tampa Bay nitrogen loading (Hillsborough River portion) showed that from 1972 to 2007, average loading was: 53.8% from nonpoint sources,16.9% from domestic point sources, 11.5% from industrial point sources, 9% from springs and groundwater, 5.9% from atmospheric deposition and 2.8% from material losses (basically industrial spills near the estuary) [source: Tampa Bay 2009 Reasonable Assurance Update]. It is clear that the 4 categories used by EPA do not reflect the diversity of sources identified by EPA itself, nor relatively easily obtained data for the larger Florida estuaries. Furthermore, EPA states on page 105 that the atmospheric load is "in all cases less, and often much less, than the measured deposition ..." so that to fully represent the total load of nitrogen in estuaries, one of the other 3 categories must be overstated to account for the misrepresentation of atmospheric loads. 

# Comment ID 1009.001.012

Author Name: * * Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: EPA proposes to set the interim acceptable load to estuaries by stating that the acceptable load is between the current load and the natural load (as predicted by SPARROW). EPA states on page 105 : "The protective TN load should be less than the current load and greater than the background load." This clearly assumes that the current load is not acceptable. As a counter-example, the current load has been adopted by EPA as the TMDL in Tampa Bay and for the last 20 years, grass bed coverage in Tampa Bay have been steadily improving proving the validity of the TMDL. Yet EPA's proposed method computes "the protective TN load by reducing the current TN load by one half of the anthropogenic contribution to that load" (page 107) . Therefore, with an overestimate of nonatmospheric contribution (see comment above) and the reduction of anthropomorphic loads by 50%, Tampa Bay's TN load would have to be significantly reduced using EPA's approach even though the resources to be protected (grass beds) have been improving with existing loading. This one example shows that the method may be invalid. 

# Comment ID 1009.001.013

Author Name: * * Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners Item III .C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: The choice of half of the current anthropogenic load as the protective load is indefensible. The justification for this choice includes:

- It is between the current load and the natural load;

- TMDLs done in Florida have resulted in a recommended 5% to 40% reduction in TN loads with a median of 38%; and,

- The percent reduction in Florida TMDLs (i.e., 38%) is similar to those recommended for well studied coastal systems outside of Florida.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3761Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

EPA concludes that the protective loads "are on average 25% lower than current TN loading" (page 107). Therefore, EPA's approach results in 50% of the detailed TMDLs to be underprotective and 50% to be over-protective. Therefore, all of these TMDIs would require a Federal SSAC to be valid (page 123), even though the 50% reduction in existing anthropogenic loads is arbitrary. 

# Comment ID 1009.001.014

Author Name: * * Organization: Clay County Board of County Commissioners Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: EPA's approach distributes the acceptable load to stream reaches based on the fraction of TN delivered to the estuary which, in turn, is based on the fraction of tributary flow into the estuary. For simplicity, EPA chose to create 6 bins of Fraction Delivered : 0-50%, 51-60%, 61-70%, 71-80%, 81­ 90% and 91-100%, where each bin is represented by the high end of the bin. Therefore, the minimum Fraction Delivered is 50% meaning that 50% of the flux on TN in the downstream node is delivered to the estuary even if the actual amount is 0%. EPA states that this was done to reduce the "number of unique DPVs from thousands to less than 100" (page 113). This does reduce the number of unique values but does not increase its validity- if fact, it reduces the applicability of the method. 

# Comment ID 1010.001.008

Author Name: Nelson B. Organization: City of Bonita Springs Downstream Protection Values The City has concerns that non-point discharge areas received as storm water sheet flow from outside the City boundaries has a higher level of phosphorus and nitrogen . As the downstream receiver of storm water, concern is that numeric nutrient criteria, without a site specific analysis to take intoconsiderations of the variances in the particular water body, would limit the ability to achieve compliance . The City of Bonita Springs is encouraged by the letter received March 17, 2010 from Assistant EPA Administrator, Peter S. Silva to Michael Sole, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, agreeing to delay finalizing promulgation of the "downstream protection values" with respect to downstream estuary protection and to address the issue in the 2011 estuary and coastal rulemaking. As mentioned previously in this comment letter, local governments are required to have a comprehensive plan. A statutory requirement where applicable is the "Coastal Element". Florida Statutes §163.3178(2)(c) mandates an analysis of the effects of existing drainage systems and the impact of point source and nonpoint source pollution on estuarine water quality and the plans and principles, including existing state and regional regulatory programs, which shall be used to maintain or upgrade water quality while maintaining sufficient quantities of water flow. Any proposed rulemaking needs to take this state law into consideration, by not creating an impediment through a standard where technology may not be available to address the numeric criteria in this complex environmental issue, as admitted by

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3762Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

EPA and referenced below. The City of Bonita Springs hopes that this comment letter will be included within the proposed rulemaking also for downstream estuary protection and will consider these comments at that time, including any additional comments that are provided under that docket. 

# Comment ID 1011.001.013

Author Name: Todd, Jr. K. Organization: Palm Beach County 8) We understand based on a recent letter from EPA Assistant Administrator Pete Sylva to DEP Secretary Mike Sole that the agency has decided to delay promulgation of the "downstream protection values" for streams to 2011. However, since the draft rule still incorporates downstream protection values, we are offering some limited comment regarding this concept. We are concerned that the downstream protection values are based on the use of the USGS `Sparrow' model for estuaries and the use of equation/methodology for lakes. USGS acknowledges that this model is not applicable in areas with significant groundwater inputs. South Florida is made up almost exclusively of drainage canals that interact with the groundwater, making the use of this model inappropriate. As to the equation/methodology, we believe it is inapplicable to Palm Beach county waters. We have additional comments concerning downstream protection values, but will defer those comments based on Mr. Sylva's letter until the 2011 rulemaking process. Should EPA elect to proceed with the adoption of the downstream protection values contained in the draft rule, then we request the agency reopen the comment period to allow Palm Beach County to submit additional comments regarding this aspect of the proposed rule. 

# Comment ID 1098-3.001.007

Author Name: Vance A. Organization: City of Bonita Springs 2. Downstream Protection Values The City has concerns that non-point discharge areas received as storm water sheet flow from outside the City boundaries has a higher level of phosphorus and nitrogen. As the downstream receiver of storm water, concern is that numeric nutrient criteria, without a site specific analysis to take intoconsiderations of the variances in the particular water body, would limit the ability to achieve compliance. The City of Bonita Springs is encouraged by the letter received March 17, 2010 from Assistant EPA Administrator, Peter S. Silva to Michael Sole, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, agreeing to delay finalizing promulgation of the "downstream protection values" with respect to downstream estuary protection and to address the issue in the 2011 estuary and coastal rulemaking. As mentioned previously in this comment letter, local governments are required to have a comprehensive plan. A

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3763Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams statutory requirement where applicable is the "Coastal Element". Florida Statutes §163.3178(2)(c) mandates an analysis of the effects of existing drainage systems and the impact of point source and nonpoint source pollution on estuarine water quality and the plans and principles, including existing state and regional regulatory programs, which shall be used to maintain or upgrade water quality while maintaining sufficient quantities of water flow. Any proposed rulemaking needs to take this state law into consideration, by not creating an impediment through a standard where technology may not be available to address the numeric criteria in this complex environmental issue, as admitted by EPA and referenced below. The City of Bonita Springs hopes that this comment letter will be included within the proposed rulemaking also for downstream estuary protection and will consider these comments at that time, including any additional comments that are provided under that docket. 

# Comment ID 1107.001.002

Author Name: Jones A. Organization: Hillsborough County Public Works Department The Florida Department of Environmental Protection as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have both worked diligently with the Nitrogen Management Consortium in the process of developing these loads to meet E.P.A.'s federally-recognized total maximum daily load for nitrogen in Tampa Bay. We appreciate that E.P.A. has delayed the requirement for downstream protective values as implementation of the proposed D.P.V.s would be inconsistent with this federally-recognized T.M.D.L. And we look forward to working with you to develop reasonable, scientifically-based requirements. Tampa Bay is currently meeting its designated uses, and we hope that the upcoming estuarine criteria and D.P.V.s will account for the existing condition of the water body. 

# Comment ID 1110.001.005

Author Name: Sherwood E. Organization: Tampa Bay Estuary Program As such, I would like to state on behalf of the consortium that we thank E.P.A. for their decision to establish downstream protective values for the Tampa Bay Estuary in conjunction with the development of estuarine numeric nutrient criteria that is anticipated to occur in 2011. We look forward to working with the E.P.A. over the next year in developing defensible protective nutrient criteria for the Tampa Bay Estuary. 

# Comment ID 1110.001.006

Author Name: Sherwood E. Organization: Tampa Bay Estuary Program

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3764Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams And to this end, I would like to point out that the consortium has formally developed and submitted a response to the proposed E.P.A. freshwater numeric nutrient criteria that outlines the nutrient management strategy developed by the consortium over the past quarter century. This strategy at its premise establishes appropriate nitrogen loads to each of the four major bay segments of Tampa Bay that will support the persistence and restoration of seagrass resources as well as maintain appropriate water quality in the bay to fully support aquatic life and help the bay obtain its full designated uses. The consortium feels that these bay-segment-specific nutrient loads developed for Tampa Bay and implemented by the consortium are defensible protective nutrient criteria. In fact, if history is any indication of the successful implementation of its nutrient manage -- management strategy for Tampa Bay, I would note that existing total nitrogen loads are less than half of what they were in the 1970s. This has lead to the natural expansion of seagrass metals to levels not seen in the bay since the 1950s. Based on the many lines of evidence that have been reported and submitted to E.P.A. in response to the -- the proposed freshwater criteria for -- for the bay, the consortium continues to respectfully request that E.P.A. acknowledge that bay specific loads developed for Tampa Bay is appropriate and defensible nutrient criteria for the estuary and as downstream protective loads in the final Florida lakes, flowing waters, and estuarine criteria rule in 2011. Once again, we thank E.P.A. for their consideration of these points in developing numeric nutrient criteria for Tampa Bay, and we encourage you to contact us with any questions or comments that you may have based upon our requests and public comment submittals. Thank you for your time and E.P.A.'s consideration in holding more public comment sections in Florida throughout this week, and thank you for soliciting comments in the Tampa Bay community. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 1126.001.003

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium In response to Mr. Peter Silver's letter to F.D.E.P. Secretary Sole this past March, we support E.P.A.'s recommendation to defer the establishment of downstream protective values, or D.P.V.s, for streams discharging into estuaries until the criteria for estuaries are established in 2011 and for providing additional third-party review of scientific basis for water quality standards to protect downstream estuarine and coastal waters, and as stated numerous times today, the estuary program stakeholders continue to work digitally on onsite specific criteria, and we look forward to working with E.P.A. and their consultants during the next year to help establish appropriate estuarine nutrient criteria and D.P.V.s for Florida's west coast estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1128.001.011

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3765Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Blancher II E. Organization: Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration LLC on behalf of CF Industries I also appreciate U.S. E.P.A.'s decision to laying the application of downstream protection values for estuarine systems derived from the SPARROW model. And I believe that the D.P.D. concept for estuaries is not based on good science, and especially a T.M.D.L. program. If T.M.D.L.s are properly done, as Florida has done with many estuarine systems, they will have no need for a layer of arbitrary rules not based on sound science which would do more harm than good. 

# Comment ID 1139.001.004

Author Name: Steadham P. Organization: Tampa Port Authority Our request is that the waste load allocations that have been developed by those groups be accepted as cite-specific alternative criteria for the waters of Tampa Bay. That concludes my comments. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 1153.001.003

Author Name: Ghent R. Organization: CF Industries Local surface waters in Tampa Bay have been documented to be holding the line on nutrient levels over the last decade. The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium has reduced nitrogen flowing into the bay since 1995, even as the region's population grew by nearly a million people. Additionally, as you have heard earlier, seagrass population, a biological indicator of the health of the ecosystem, have been increasing. This was accomplished with no federal numeric nutrient standards. 

# Comment ID 1170.001.003

Author Name: Collins B. Organization: Original comment letter contains additional data or information for models. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3766Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams And in response to some concern I have heard over the -- the SPARROW model, I would like to suggest looking at another published model, specifically the -- the paper is entitled A Framework For Developing Ecosystem-Specific Nutrient Criteria, Integrating Biological Thresholds With Predictive Modeling, to be found Limnology and Oceanography, Volume 53, Issue 2, published in 2008. The lead author was Soranno. Okay, thanks.


# Comment ID 1217-2.001.014

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 9. As noted above, Mosaic studied the DPVs for estuaries proposed in the Rule, prior to EPA announcing its plan to defer finalizing those criteria until a subsequent rulemaking. Mosaic's critique, comments and suggested improvements to the DPV component of the Rule may be of value to EPA in that later rulemaking, and so we include them in these comments as well. 

# Comment ID 1224.001.001

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Hi. I'm Kelli Hammer Levy with the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management. And I too want to thank you for coordinating the adoption of downstream protective values with the proposed estuarine water quality criteria process and for extending the comment period to allow stakeholders more time to review your extensive proposal. 

# Comment ID 1236.001.002

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium I would like to recognize E.P.A. for their decision to establish downstream protective values for the Tampa Bay Estuary in conjunction with the development of estuarine numeric criteria and also recognize E.P.A. for extending the comment period on the subject rule. 

# Comment ID 1250.001.005

Author Name: Roth R.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3767Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Florida Chamber of Commerce In contrast, the E.P.A. basic reference sites approach is fundamentally flawed. We cannot take water from a pristine stream or river and apply it to a canal. Specifically, we cannot start with groundwater in the water conservation area 3A in South Florida that is being discharged into Biscayne Bay, measure the nutrients, then use a simple mathematical equation to set water quality standards in the E.P.A. -- in the E.A.A. Different soil type,different biology dictate different standards. Given that 80 percent of the pristine water bodies do not meet the proposed criteria, let the state of Florida set its own site-specific criteria for each individual water body and each region. As we all know, one size does not fit all. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 1254.001.003

Author Name: Lovely S. Organization: Pinellas County Utilities Due to the scientific basis and collaborative efforts that went into the development of the nutrient allocations for Tampa Bay, we urge that E.P.A. accept and recognize the Tampa Bay's Nitrogen Management Consortium's bay segment specific total nitrogen loads as the nutrient loading criteria for Tampa Bay and its watersheds.Existing loads are appropriate and scientifically defensible. The Tampa Bay Estuary Program's work constitutes a sitespecific analysis for that estuary and should be used in the rural development for Florida standards of estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1261-1.001.014

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: EPA proposes to use the South Atlantic Gulf and Tennessee (SAGT) version of the USGS SPARROW model to determine the downstream protection value (DPV) for total nitrogen in Florida estuaries. EPA questions the use of this method for total phosphorus in estuaries, yet many of the Florida estuaries are phosphorus limited. This comment reflects also on its applicability to the control oftotal nitrogen as well. Furthermore, the model uses only 4 classes of nitrogen inflows: fertilizer, manure, urban point source and atmospheric. Fertilizer and manure were estimated "from county level fertilizer sales, census of agriculture and population estimates." From EPA's TMDL website, sources of pollutant loading to national waters (not all nutrient related) include (in order of square miles threatened for estuaries and embayments): municipal discharges/sewage, atmospheric deposition, unknown, natural/wildlife, industrial, agricultural, hydromodification, other, habitat alteration, urban-related runoff, unspecified nonpoint sources, resource extraction, recreational boating and a host of others with much smaller impacts. Recent studies of Tampa Bay nitrogen loading (Hillsborough River portion) showed that from 1972 to 2007, average

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3768Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams loading was: 53.8% from nonpoint sources, 16.9% from domestic point sources, 11.5% from industrial point sources, 9% from springs and groundwater, 5.9 % from atmospheric deposition and 2.8% from material losses (basically industrial spills near the estuary) [source: Tampa Bay 2009 Reasonable Assurance Update]. It is clear that the 4 categories used by EPA do not reflect the diversity of sources identified by EPA itself, nor relatively easily obtained data for the larger Florida estuaries. Furthermore, EPA states on page 105 that the atmospheric load is "in all cases less, and often much less, than the measured deposition ... " so that to fully represent the total load of nitrogen in estuaries, one of the other 3 categories must be overstated to account for the misrepresentation of atmospheric loads. 

# Comment ID 1261-1.001.015

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: EPA proposes to set the interim acceptable load to estuaries by stating that the acceptable load is between the current load and the natural load (as predicted by SPARROW). EPA states on page 105: "The protective TN load should be less than the current load and greater than the background load." This clearly assumes that the current load is not acceptable. As a counter-example, the current load has been adopted by EPA as the TMDL in Tampa Bay and for the last 20 years, grass bed coverage in Tampa Bay have been steadily improving proving the validity of the TMDL. Yet EPA's proposed method computes "the protective TN load by reducing the current TN load by one half of the anthropogenic contribution to that load" (page 107). Therefore, with an overestimate of non-atmospheric contribution (see comment above) and the reduction of anthropomorphic loads by 50%, Tampa Bay's TN load would have to be significantly reduced using EPA's approach even though the resources to be protected (grass beds) have been improving with existing loading. This one example shows that the method may be invalid, if not harmful. 

# Comment ID 1261-1.001.016

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: The choice of half of the current anthropogenic load as the protective load is indefensible. The justification for this choice includes:

• It is between the current load and the natural load;

• TMDLs done in Florida have resulted in a recommended 5% to 40% reduction in TN loads with a median of 38%; and,

• The percent reduction in Florida TMDLs (i.e., 38%) is similar to those recommended for well studied coastal systems outside of Florida.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3769Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

EPA concludes that the protective loads" are on average 25% lower than current TN loading" (page 107). Therefore, EPA's approach results in 50% of the detailed TMDLs to be under-protective and 50% to be over-protective. Therefore, all of these TMDLs would require a Federal SSAC to be valid (page 123), even though the 50% reduction in existing anthropogenic loads is arbitrary. 

# Comment ID 1261-1.001.017

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: EPA's approach distributes the acceptable load to stream reaches based on the fraction of TN delivered to the estuary which, in turn, is based on the fraction of tributary flow into the estuary. For simplicity, EPA chose to create 6 bins of Fraction Delivered: 0-50%, 51-60%, 61-70%, 71-80%,81-90% and 91-100%, where each bin is represented by the high end of the bin. Therefore, the minimum Fraction Delivered is 50%, meaning that 50% of the flux on TN in the downstream node is delivered to the estuary even if the actual amount is 0%. EPA states that this was done to reduce the "number of unique DPVs from thousands to less than 100" (page 113). This does reduce the number of unique values but does not increase its validity - in fact, it reduces the applicability of the method. 

# Comment ID 1286.001.004

Author Name: Reese T. Organization: Friends of Brooker Creek Preserve And I think the downstream protection is critical. And if there is going to be, and there probably already has been discussion about Tampa Bay itself. For 25 years, I've been on the Tampa Bay Agency on Bay Management, which is advisory council to Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. And attempting to try to control nutrients there, so far has been addressed primarily towards seagrass. And I would stress to you that seagrass is not the sole impact that you are looking for for nutrient control, you also have to be looking at dissolved oxygen on a daily basis and also a never-below level. And that's very important because you -- the organisms in the water body are being protected, not only the seagrass but the organisms in the water body are very important to grazing on the seagrass and getting some of the -- the algae out of there. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.007

Author Name: Barr D.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3770Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District Estuaries in the panhandle need to be more comprehensively evaluated to determine the condition and effects of nutrient loads on these systems which would be effected by upstream systems. It is not recommended to pre establish upstream standards in isolation of the downstream estuarine requirements. The panhandle has several estuarine systems (e.g. Apalachicola Bay, St. Joseph Bay, St. Andrew Bay) that are con idered healthy systems and do not exhibit nutrient impairment. 

# Comment ID 1296-1.001.007

Author Name: Drew H. Organization: Wood Cellulose Manufacturing Thirdly, as demonstrated by EPA's recently approved TMDL for the Fenholloway River, the proposed DPVs do not account for the inherent assimilative capacity these estuary systems possess. The recently approved TMDL for the Fenholloway system found that the Fenholloway River estuary can receive two times the TN load as the Econfina system and still maintain a healthy ecologic state equivalent to the Econfina River estuary. The limiting productivity factor in the Econfina River estuary is generally not nutrients. There are wide ranging factors that affect the nutrient health of water bodies throughout the State of Florida and, as such, having a process to address the specific circumstances of individual water bodies will be critical. 

# Comment ID 1298-1.001.001

Author Name: Gastesi R. Organization: Board of County Commissioners, County of Monroe Please incorporate Monroe County's ("the County's") comments related to the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA's") proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, 40 CFR Part 131. As I am sure you are aware, the County has a vested interest in clean water. As such, the County supports the establishment of criteria for nutrients that protect the waters in and around the County for current and future generations of residents and tourists alike. The County's economy is almost entirely dependent on water-based tourism and it has no agricultural or manufacturing land uses. Because of our economic base, it is important to note that many of the primary sources of nutrients in the County's waters stem from sources located outside of the County's jurisdiction and control. Because of the relationship between the health of the environment and economy in the County, we support EPA's objectives in developing numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) that are protective of our water resources and improve our water quality. The County (and a number of other County stakeholders) will primarily be affected by the upcoming rulemaking for water quality criteria in estuarine and coastal waters that will be proposed in 2011. While the County understands that the current proposed criteria address primarily freshwater systems, we feel that it is critical to provide these comments now for several reasons. First, the County is in the unique position of already being required to meet certain numeric

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3771Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams nutrient standards in relation to its efforts to centralize wastewater service. Second, we believe that the process to promulgate standards for estuarine and coastal systems will be similar to the approach to arrive at standards for predominately freshwater systems. Finally, we believe that the work that has already been completed related to the County's water quality issues must serve as a fundamental basis for establishing any further water quality criteria in this area. The comments contained in this correspondence are aimed partially at these future proposals for estuarine and coastal waters and at some procedural issues in the current proposed rulemaking which, if carried over into the 2011 cycle may significantly affect the County. 

# Comment ID 1303-1.001.003

Author Name: Bessey J. Organization: St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners Further, model predictions from "Spatial Analysis of Instream Nitrogen Loads and Factors Controlling Delivery to Streams in the Southeastern United States using SPARROW and Regional Classification Frameworks" (Hoos, A. and McMahon, G., USGS) have estimated that approximately 40 percent of the instream nitrogen loading comes from atmospheric deposition using comparable water bodies. Anthropogenic activities can be controlled where weather cannot. MS4 permitees such as St. Lucie County will disproportionally be required to reach water quality goals that may be unattainable with this proposed rulemaking. 

# Comment ID 1304-1.001.041

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. Because the EPA has attempted to regulate downstream effects in the development of stream and lake criteria, estuarine effects are of particular concern. Although EPA has indicated by letter it has deferred the development of Downstream Protective Values (DPV) until 2011 to coincide with estuary criteria, it is still part of the proposed regulation and requires attention because of the importance of nutrients to coastal estuarine systems in Florida. Managing nutrients in upstream waterbodies and estuaries in a manner that only addresses over-enrichment fails to account for the important role primary production plays in estuarine ecosystems. An exclusive focus on nutrient enrichment also could lead to deleterious ecological and economic effects. Nixon and Buckley (2002) state that management decisions regarding nutrient loads allowed to enter estuaries should be made with the understanding that tradeoffs exist between water clarity and the abundance of oysters, clams, fish, and other fauna the public may desire. A long-term study of Apalachicola Bay found that drought conditions causing reduced inflow from the Apalachicola River lead to a reduction in nutrients and a loss of productivity (Livingston et al 1997 and Livingston 2001). Failure to address the potential downstream effects of nutrient reduction can lead to reductions in the productivity of estuarine environments. The report from Entrix properly concludes the following technical findings.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3772Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

• Numerous studies have shown that nutrients, and their affect on primary productivity, have a positive relationship with fish and bird biomass and abundance in lakes. Excessive nutrient reductions may negatively affect lake biological communities.

• Some stream studies also show that increasing nutrient concentrations can have positive effects on stream productivity and macroinvertebrates.

• In estuary systems, ecosystem managers must recognize that tradeoffs exist between managing nutrient loads for water clarity versus the abundance of oysters, clams, fish, and other desirable species. Long-term studies of Apalachicola Bay indicate that oyster productivity in the Bay may be dependent on nutrient loads from inland water sources.


# Comment ID 1304-1.001.043

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association Environmental Affairs, Inc. DPVs Were Developed Using a Model That is Not Appropriate The EPA proposed downstream protection values (DPVs) are also flawed because they rely on a model application that is not appropriate to be used for this purpose. EPA selected the USGS-developed SAGT-SPARROW ("SPARROW") model to determine an allocation of nitrogen concentrations at each stream section. While SPARROW may be useful in certain region-wide contexts, as used by EPA for the proposed DPVs, this model application does not provide sufficiently detailed analyses to generate results useful for load or concentration allocations. Because SPARROW as used by EPA does not provide fine resolution by stream segment, it tends to overstate the fraction of bioavailable nitrogen delivered to the estuary, and consequently will establish inappropriate DPVs for thesestreams and stream segments. Estimating natural attenuation of nitrogen is complex and should be done on a sitespecific basis with models more appropriately selected. The coarse resolution of this modeling approach, reliant upon stream size-dependent denitrification alone for estimating attenuation, produces overprotective DPVs by underestimating in-stream losses of nutrients. The lack of model refinement is also evident in the nutrient source classifications, in which "atmospheric loads" are assumed to be the only non-anthropogenic source of TN, and therefore the only source not subject to load reductions needed to calculate DPVs. Before concentration reductions are required for a water body on the basis of an arbitrary "50% reduction of anthropogenic sources of TN" criterion, the existing water quality of each specific watershed should be considered first. Though EPA asserts that "[m]easuring instream loss rates at the appropriate time and space scale is exceedingly difficult, and it is not possible to do state-wide," 75 Fed. Reg. 4,202, the assertion is incorrect. The detailed streamreach data does exist to render SPARROW far more accurate in establishing stream-specific loads and fractiondelivered values; EPA chose not to load this data into SPARROW, perhaps because of the additional time it would have

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3773Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams taken for USGS to develop the proper input mechanisms into the SPARROW model. However, the estuary criteria rulemaking is not scheduled until January of 2011. This allows ample time to reconstruct SPARROW to enable it to generate loading results based on actual stream conditions or utilize more appropriate modeling to determine nutrient levels protective of downstream estuaries. The EPA's approach to establishing DPVs, and specifically its selection of the SPARROW model to determine the standard, departs radically from other methods to develop criteria under the Clean Water Act. This methodology has not been used before for this purpose and vetted through proper peer-review, e.g. review by EPA's Science Advisory Board. The EPA's decision to submit its approach to independent peer review for use in deriving DPVs is appropriate. In addition, the EPA should consider the work being done by FDEP to determine whether the current nutrient levels in Florida's estuarine systems impact designated uses. 

# Comment ID 1333.001.006

Author Name: Hauck A. Organization: Council of Civic Associations In a letter dated -- she talks about transparency, remember that. In a letter dated March 17, 2010 from Peter Silva, EPA assistant administrator for water, to Mike Sole, he writes: "First, the agency has decided to delay finalizing promulgation of downstream protection value, or DPVs, with respect to downstream estuary protection, and to address this issue in the 2011 estuary and coastal rule-making. The downstream protection values are specifically stream concentrations that were proposed to assure the maintenance and protection of water quality standards in downstream estuaries. The agency is now committed to fold this aspect of establishing protective water quality criteria into the 2011 rule-making. Any downstream protection values that EPA proposes in January 2011 will also be subject to review and public comment as part of that rule-making process." "Second," Mr. Silva says, "EPA will seek additional third-party review of the scientific basis for water quality standards to protect downstream estuarine and coastal waters. We commit to consult with FDEP on the scope of a third-party review and will announce in early April the specific plans for that review." These are our objections. I'm going to go as fast as I can, please. MR. KING: We're about -- I'm about -- we'll do about one more minute, if that's all right. Can -­ MS. HAUCK: Yeah. MR. KING: Okay. Great. Thanks. MS. HAUCK: First, Mr. Silva's proposal to Mr. Sole left the public out of the loop, contrary to Administrator Jackson's belief that the government's obligation is to inform the public about water quality, or actions to protect the water quality, or the need to improve transparency, as the public can be the government's best ally.



# Comment ID 1335.001.007

Author Name: Littlejohn C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3774Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Florida Land Council We sincerely appreciate your agency's willingness to provide more time for comments, more hearings and for withdrawing the portion on downstream waters. But make no mistake, we know that nothing has really changed, as the latter is simply a delay and we know that we still must face the downstream numbers next year. 

# Comment ID 1338-1.001.004

Author Name: Champion T. Organization: Georgia-Pacific Corporation, LLC The mechanistic model approach has been successfully used by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on the Lower St. Johns River and other watersheds. Wasteload allocations have been set and are currently being implemented on the Lower St. Johns. Georgia-Pacific's Palatka mill has met its allocation (Lower St. Johns River TMDL Executive Committee, "Draft 2009 Progress Report for the Lower St. Johns River Main Stem Basin Action Management Plan," December 2009.) and initial results from the Water Management District's studies indicate that the environmental goals are being achieved (Hendrickson, John, "Nutrient Regime for Biological Resources Protection in a SE US Blackwater River Estuary: The St. Johns River Example," Coastal Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Meeting, Jacksonville, FL, March 3, 2010.). In spite of the effort expended by EPA, Florida and Georgia-Pacific, the criteria applicable to the St. Johns River in the proposed regulation would be inconsistent with the site specific work performed for the St. Johns River. Georgia-Pacific believes that the TMDL targets and their associated waste load allocation should be maintained for the Lower St. Johns River. Unlike the generalized nutrient criteria proposed by EPA, the loads established for the Lower St. Johns River were specifically derived from site specific data and mechanistic modeling that resulted in the target of obtaining and maintaining a healthy and viable ecosystem. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.086

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County SPARROW and Estuarine Downstream Protection Values • EPA makes the inappropriate assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries. In Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses serve as the desired endpoint to assess water quality management activities aimed at controlling nutrient loadings. Seagrass coverage has increased in each of these systems since the 1980s, indicating the success of watershed management actions. Therefore, it is difficult to justify additional load reductions where empirical data show such responses to management actions specifically developed to address water quality problems. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.087

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3775Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County SPARROW and Estuarine Downstream Protection Values • Utilization of SPARROW to determine protective loads to Florida estuaries is inappropriate, as the regional model was not intended to be used for site-specific application in regulatory programs. USGS suggests that for local-scale use, estimated loads for actual time periods should be used. In Florida, loading estimates based on best available information exist for Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and should be used when evaluating estuarine protective loads. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.088

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County SPARROW and Estuarine Downstream Protection Values • SPARROW model calibration fitted model coefficients based on data from sites in Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, so that the coefficients and explanatory variables providing the best fit for the entire model domain are not necessarily the same as would be found if the model were fit for a specific watershed or state. To utilize SPARROW model output to establish estuarine protective values and downstream protective values within streams of Florida, it would be much more appropriate to limit the model's spatial domain to Florida or even a group of Florida watersheds, and derive explanatory variables and fitted model coefficients based on this more appropriate model domain. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.089

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County SPARROW and Estuarine Downstream Protection Values • The SPARROW model was not validated, with calibration only for 2002 conditions using long-term gaged loads and atmospheric deposition loads detrended to 2002. It is also inappropriate to utilize a model which has not undergone validation under conditions other than those used for calibration. The use of a model for management decision making is predicated on the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions when observed inputs are provided. The robustness of the model is often determined by testing the model under varying inputs. After calibration, the model is validated under input conditions different than those used for calibration, and the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions with this different set of inputs attests to the ability of the model to be used as a predictive tool. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.090

Author Name: Herr M.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3776Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Polk County SPARROW and Estuarine Downstream Protection Values • Application of the SPARROW model does not incorporate the best available information at local scales, using only 1:500,000-scale hydrography and estimated loads not always based on all available data for a watershed. A more appropriate application would utilize information already available, as for loadings to Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and more refined hydrography to calibrate the model. It is important to understand, however, that the model is used only because of the EPA assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries, and thus some method is used to derive protective loads. For those estuaries with empirical data indicating that protective loads are not being exceeded, and with technically sound and defensible estimates of what the protective loads are, application of SPARROW is not only superfluous but wasteful of resources as well. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.091

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County SPARROW and Estuarine Downstream Protection Values • The application of the reverse attenuation methodology to derive DPVs for stream reaches protective of downstream estuaries has merit, but is predicated on the model providing an accurate estimation of the protective value for a given estuary, which the SAGT SPARROW application does not provide. Where accepted estuarine loading estimates are available, a similar process could be utilized to derive DPVs. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.124

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Comments on SPARROW Application Used to Derive DPVs for Streams SPARROW (Spatially Referenced Regressions on Watershed attributes) is a modeling technique used to relate observed water quality data to watershed attributes. SPARROW uses a nonlinear regression equation describing the non-conservative transport of pollutants from a watershed through its hydrologic network. SPARROW predicts contaminant flux, concentrations, and yields (Schwarz et al., 2006). EPA developed proposed numeric nutrient criteria for the State of Florida's lakes and flowing waters, utilizing SPARROW results to develop Downstream Protection Values (DPVS) of Total Nitrogen (TN) concentrations for streams based on proposed protective loads for the receiving estuaries (EPA, 2010a). This review provides a summary of the SPARROW application utilized to derive estuarine protective water quality values and stream DPVs by EPA for the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for the State of Florida's lakes and flowing waters. Following this summary, the methodology used for deriving estuarine loads and protective values, and DPVs for Florida streams, are provided, including comments on the appropriateness of the application for this purpose. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.125

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3777Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Summary of SPARROW An application of the SPARROW model was utilized by EPA for developing protective TN loads to Florida estuaries, and for developing DPVs for streams. The specific model is the South Atlantic, Gulf, and Tennessee (SAGT) regional SPARROW model (EPA, 2010a). Three versions of this model were developed by USGS, Models A, B, and C (Hoos and McMahon, 2009), with the authors recommending use of Model B predictions. The SAGT SPARROW application utilizes the Enhanced River Reach File 2.0 (ERF1_2) based on EPA's 1:500,000-scale reach file (Hoos and McMahon, 2009). The ERF1_2 contains stream discharge, time of travel, and reservoir information for each reach. Mean annual nitrogen loads were developed for 2002 (Hoos et al., 2008) from various sources. The model predicts mean annual instream nitrogen loads for each reach of the model, and to the downstream estuaries which receive these loads. The conceptual model determines the flux from a given reach i as the sum of 1) the load generated within upstream reaches and transported to the reach and 2) the load originating within the reach's incremental watershed and delivered to the reach segment. This is given by Originial comment letter contains equations with symbols that will not translate to the database. See pages 50 and 51 of the comment letter. Source input variables: • Nitrogen mass in permitted wastewater discharge - Estimates of point source discharge loadings were compiled by McMahon et al. (2007) for 2002. The loads from point sources within the SAGT domain were estimated from data obtained from EPA's Permit Compliance System database and state databases. Loads were assigned to reach catchments based on location data obtained from the databases. • Wet deposition of inorganic nitrogen ­ Estimates of wet deposition were developed using data for wet deposition of inorganic nitrogen obtained from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program for 1990-2005. A detrending procedure was applied at each station to produce a detrended estimate of annual load for the base year of 2002 (Hoos et al., 2008). The estimates were interpolated to a 5-km grid using an inverse-distance weighting method, and an estimate for each reach catchment was derived. • Area of impervious surface - The 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) was used to derive impervious surface area in each catchment. The NLCD provides percent impervious surface area for each 30-m grid cell, which were multiplied by the cell area and summed for each reach catchment (Hoos et al., 2008). • Nitrogen mass in commercial fertilizer applied to agricultural land - Estimates of nitrogen loading due to fertilizer application on agricultural lands for 2002 were based on the methods provided in Ruddy et al. (2006). Estimates were developed based on countylevel data, which were derived from information on annual sales data and Census of Agriculture data. County-level loads were apportioned to the 30-m grid cells containing agricultural lands from the NLCD. • Nitrogen mass in manure from livestock production - Estimates of manure nitrogen loading were based on county-level livestock population data from the Census of Agriculture for 2002 (Ruddy et al., 2006; Hoos et al., 2008). County-level loads were apportioned to the 30-m grid cells containing agricultural lands from the NLCD. Physical landscape variables: • Ln of depth (cm) to bedrock - Estimates of depth to bedrock were obtained from the 1:250,000-scale natural Resource Conservation Service State Soil Geographic data (Hoos et al., 2008), with the depth for a given catchment derived from the depths of the soil mapping units within the catchment. • Ln of mean annual precipitation (mm) - Estimates of mean annual precipitation were obtained from the Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) developed by Oregon State University. This model interpolates a continuous precipitation surface with consideration of digital elevation model information. The surfaces are distributed as 800-m resolution raster datasets (Oregon State University, PRISM Group, 2007). The precipitation data were averaged within each reach catchment. • Fractions of catchment in HLR 2, in HLR 16, in HLR 4, and in HLRs 6, 9, or 11 - Hydrologic landscape regions (HLRs) were delineated as described in Wolock et al. (2004). Twenty HLRs were defined, based on similarities in land-surface form, geologic texture, and climate characteristics, with most of Florida in HLRs 1 and 2. Originial comment letter contains

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3778Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams equations with symbols that will not translate to the database. See pages 53 of the comment letter. To estimate TN concentrations specific to individual reaches that are commensurate with the downstream estuary protective TN value (DPVs for streams), the concentration of TN reaching the estuary from the entire watershed is apportioned back upstream through the hydrologic network, with the specific reach concentrations being determined by the amount of load attenuation that occurred in the loading estimation algorithm in the SAGT SPARROW model. The model tracks the fraction of the flux at each downstream node that reaches the estuary, so that a concentration for each reach can be estimated which results in achievement of the downstream estuary protective load. 

# Comment ID 1352-1.001.126

Author Name: Herr M. Organization: Polk County Comments on Use of SPARROW for Deriving Protective TN Loading Estimates for Estuaries and Corresponding DPVs For Streams EPA developed protective TN loading estimates for Florida estuaries to derive water quality criteria in flowing waters that ensured protection of designated uses in the estuaries. The SAGT SPARROW model was run for current conditions, defined as 2002 conditions, and for background conditions, defined as current conditions less the anthropogenic loadings from point sources, urban land use, fertilizer, and manure. The protective load was then determined as the midpoint between these two loads, under the assumption that "...a defensible estimate of the protective TN load must be between this value and the current TN loading rate." (EPA, 2010b). This is an inappropriate assumption for at least some of the Florida estuaries, as the current loading to Tampa Bay (2003-2007) has been shown to meet the TMDL for the bay (Tampa Bay Estuary Program and Janicki Environmental, 2009). The Tampa Bay Estuary Program has developed a technically sound relationship between nitrogen loadings to the bay and the ecological health of the bay, and nitrogen management based on maintaining loadings at or below these levels has resulted in significant increases in seagrass acreage in the bay. The SAGT SPARROW model used mean annual nitrogen load as the response variable in the SPARROW regression equation provided above. The model was calibrated by fitting the model coefficients [Originial comment letter contains equations with symbols that will not translate to the database. See page 54of the comment letter.] to measured TN loads from 331 sites within the entire SAGT spatial domain, which includes portions or all of the states of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. As noted by other reviews (FDEP, 2009b), "...the USGS has acknowledged that the regional model was not intended to be used for site-specific application in regulatory programs without significant development of site-specific information..." Valigura et al. (2000) conducted a preliminary comparison of SPARROW- derived estimates with independently derived estimates of N loading to 97 estuaries on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the U.S. Based on that comparison Valigura et al. (2000) concluded that while "SPARROW accurately predicted it did a poor job of predicting the load to any one particular estuary..."(OW-2009-0596-0140.pdf). Calibration of the model coefficients over the spatial domain represented by the Southeastern US provides for comparison of loadings and loading mechanisms on a regional basis. This does not, however, provide an appropriate model for use in setting loading limits in a single estuarine watershed. This is especially true for an estuary for which

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3779Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams loading estimates have been compiled and utilized effectively as part of a nitrogen management strategy for almost two decades, as in Tampa Bay. As noted in Hoos et al. (2008), "For local-scale interpretations use of loads estimated for actual time periods and employing a more detailed regression analysis, such as stepwise linear regression and consideration of additional explanatory variables, is suggested." It is inappropriate to utilize the large-scale model for evaluation of loadings at the estuarine watershed scale. EPA also notes that, "Where the SPARROW model does not estimate loading from a portion of the watershed of an estuary, U.S. EPA assumed that the yield of TN delivered to estuarine waters per square kilometer in that portion of the watershed was the same as in the portion covered by SPARROW" (EPA, 2010b). This assumption is inappropriate, and dependent upon the relative size of the watershed for which SPARROW does not estimate loadings to that of the total watershed, could result in significant over- or under-predictions of watershed loadings. It is also inappropriate to utilize a model which has not undergone validation under conditions other than those used for calibration. The use of a model for management decision making is predicated on the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions when observed inputs are provided. The robustness of the model is often determined by testing the model under varying inputs. After calibration, the model is validated under input conditions different than those used for calibration, and the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions with this different set of inputs attests to the ability of the model to be used as a predictive tool. The SAGT SPARROW model was not validated. The SAGT SPARROW Model B used by EPA for deriving the protective TN loadings evaluated a list of potential explanatory variables for significance, as described in Hoos and McMahon (2009). It is possible that were the model applied only to a specific watershed, the significant explanatory variables would be different than that group selected from the model covering the entire southeastern US. Model calibration to a specific watershed or specific geomorphologic region would be more appropriate for derivation of significant explanatory variables when considering use of the model results for regulatory purposes. This is especially applicable to Florida, where watershed physical characteristics are typically very different from those in the remainder of the southeast. The hydrologic network utilized by the SAGT SPARROW model is inappropriate for representing a realistic depiction of the actual travel paths for watershed loadings at the estuary watershed scale. The Enhanced River Reach File 2.0 (ERF1_2) is based on the USEPA's 1:500,000-scale Reach File 1 (Hoos et al., 2008). This resolution is insufficient to represent all but the grossest scale of hydrography. The rule document (EPA, 2010a) notes that the SAGT SPARROW "TN load estimates explain 96% of the variation in observed loads from monitoring sites across the region with no spatial bias at Florida sites." This information does not indicate the appropriateness of the model for use in estimating loads under different scenarios, however. It is only indicative of the ability of the model to match loads during the year for which it is calibrated. It is not surprising that the coefficient of determination (r2) is 0.96, as the calibration to annual observed loads is predicated on fitting the model coefficients so that observed loads are reproduced at the specific sites used for estimating loads. As noted in the SPARROW model documentation, "The R-square and Adjusted R-Square statistics for a SPARROW model tend to be large (greater than 0.6). Large values for these statistics result partly from the fact that much of the variation in the dependent variables is associated with the size (drainage area) of the basin upstream from the monitored reach, and drainage area in turn is typically highly correlated with contaminant source variables. A high R-square, therefore, does not necessarily indicate thestrength of the model within a smaller basin. Goodness of model fit for small basins might be better described by R11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3780Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams square of the logarithm of contaminant yield..." The coefficient of determination (r2) of the yield estimate for the Model B run of the SAGT SPARROW model was 0.72 (Hoos and McMahon, 2009), indicating that the calibrated model only explained 72% of the spatial variation in yield. Without validation of the model, the appropriateness of the model for use in estimating loads for different watershed conditions is unknown. The ability of the model to explain variations in load estimates for different periods, when flow and thus loading conditions were different than those for the calibration year, would be a very important factor in determining the utility of the model for use in loading scenario evaluation and analysis. Without this test, it is inappropriate to use the model results for estimation of differences in loads resulting from different load scenarios. Original comment letter contains additional data or information for streams in Figure 10: Comparison of SPARROW model with FDEP stream network. SPARROW model is very coarse and does not include many small streams. See original comment letter. For those reaches with downstream nodes where loading data are available, the modelpredicted loads are set equal to observed loads, so the model upstream hydrography plays no role in determining the load. However, calibration of the model coefficients using insufficiently resolved hydrography results in errors when utilizing these model coefficients in reaches downstream of nodes where observed loads exist, in ungaged areas. With insufficiently resolved hydrography in areas upstream of observed loads, and shorter travel paths due to this hydrography than those that actually exist, calibration of the model coefficients to recreate observed loads may result in overly large model load attenuation rates. It is likely that these rates applied to those areas for which no observed loads were utilized by the SPARROW model result in too much attenuation of model loads from these areas, so that the predicted loads from these areas are lower than they should be. Under-prediction of loadings for both the 2002 period and the background conditions would result, with those watersheds with appreciably large proportions of their watersheds in ungaged areas being more prone to underestimation of loadings. The SAGT SPARROW model does not consider non-contributing areas of the watershed. In the Tampa Bay watershed, the hydrology of relatively large areas of the eastern watershed has been modified by mining activities, resulting in large areas from which runoff is directed through NPDES monitored outfalls. Since point source loadings are also incorporated into the SPARROW loadings, any estimates of non-NPDES runoff from these areas results in additional loading from the watershed. In the Tampa Bay watershed, these areas are within gaged basins. Since the calibration of the model coefficients is based on matching observed loadings to model predictions, and the model loadings may be greater than those that would be predicted were the runoff loads from these non-contributing areas discounted, then estimation of the level of attenuation of loads at the gages is likely too high. The ERF1_2 hydrography file used as model input contains stream reach attributes including travel time within the reach (Hoos and McMahon, 2009). Model coefficients are calibrated for two reach classes for the SAGT SPARROW Model B, those with mean flows <28 m3/s, and those with mean flows >28 m3/sec (Hoos and McMahon, 2009). The ERF1_2 file was based on USEPA's 1-500,000-scale Reach File 1, with enhancements to support water quality modeling (Nolan et al., 2002). Reach travel times were estimated as the quotient of the reach length and mean reach velocity (Nolan et al., 2002). Given the 1:500,000-scale of the hydrography, it is unlikely that accurate estimates of reach time-of-travel resulted, making the model calibration for the coefficients associated with time of travel inappropriate. The resolution of the hydrography makes it likely that the reach lengths are less than would be found using more refined hydrography, so that attenuation is overestimated to match model loads to observed loads. Applying

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3781Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams these overly high attenuation rates to areas downstream of gages then results in loadings lower than what would be expected given greater resolution of hydrography. More appropriate information may exist for use in calculating input loading data for a given estuary than utilized by the SAGT SPARROW model. For example, FDEP has compared the sites from which data were used for flows and water quality by SAGT SPARROW and available sites within the Tampa Bay watershed (FDEP, 2010a). In summary, it was found that for the SAGT SPARROW model:

• more appropriate flow and water quality data were available for loadings from Lake Tarpon, with the SAGT SPARROW model loads estimated from flow and water quality upstream of the lake,

• no reservoir reach was included on Rocky Creek,

• data for flow and water quality are available for Sweetwater Creek, which was not used,

• no reservoir reach was included for the Hillsborough River, and water quality data were used from multiple sites, one strongly tidally influenced, to match with flows over the dam to estimate loads,

• neither Crystal Springs (upstream of the Hillsborough River dam) nor Sulphur Springs (downstream of the dam) were included,

• no accounting was made of water exchange between the Hillsborough River and the Tampa Bypass Canal,

• no data were used for loadings from the Tampa Bypass Canal,

• for Delaney Creek, water quality data from a tidally influenced station were used,

• in the Alafia River, no accounting was made for potable water supply withdrawals, for flows from Lithia Springs, or for loads from Buckhorn Springs, where both springs are downstream of the flow gage used for load estimation,

• in the Manatee River, loads were estimated using flow and water quality data upstream of Lake Manatee, so that no accounting was made for flows from the reservoir to the estuary,

• in the Braden River, loads were estimated using flows contributing to Lake Ward, but not those exiting the lake to the estuarine portion of the river Use of estuary-specific best available data for model input is much more appropriate when deriving load estimates for use in regulatory decision making. The SAGT SPARROW model does not apply any attenuation to those reaches identified as shoreline reaches, as noted in Schwarz et al. (2006). As noted in communications between FDEP and USGS staff (FDEP, 2010a), this can result in large areas having watershed loads generated and directly entering the estuary. This leads to a misrepresentation of the loads from these areas reaching the estuaries. Atmospheric deposition to watersheds was estimated using detrended estimates of mean annual wet deposition (Hoos et al., 2008). In communications between FDEP and USGS staff (FDEP, pers. comm. 2, 2010), it was noted that data in addition to that utilized by USGS were available for Florida. These additional data include the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study (TBADS) site on the eastern shore of Old Tampa Bay, where data were collected during 1996-2006, and other state and local agency sites. Use of these site-specific data, in addition to the data used from NADP NTN sites, would be more appropriate when developing loads for the Tampa Bay estuary. This is especially important as the background loading is that attributed to atmospheric deposition alone, with all other source categories corresponding to anthropogenic loadings removed. Problems with the point source data utilized for the SAGT SPARROW model for Florida were also identified in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3782Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams questions submitted by FDEP to USGS staff (FDEP, 2010a). It was noted that more than 60 facilities did not have calculated nitrogen loads, 42 facilities identified in the discharger spreadsheet were not found in the FDEP NPDES list, and FDEP identified 182 facilities not on the USGS list. Additionally, FDEP noted that loadings from facilities with multiple outfalls were typically assigned to the facility location. As stated previously, for development of loadings from the watershed of a given estuary, it is most appropriate to utilize the best available information and knowledge, which is often held by local agencies. For the Tampa Bay watershed, a database of point source loadings and loading discharge locations has been maintained for data from 1985 through present. Reuse of point source discharge for irrigation or industrial processing, and the associated loads reaching the estuary, were not considered in the SAGT SPARROW model. As noted in communications between FDEP and USGS staff (FDEP, 2010a), only loads estimated from surface water discharges, as estimated from data obtained from EPA PCS, were included in the model input files. This is likely to result in an underestimate of loadings where reuse practices are prevalent. In the Tampa Bay watershed, a large proportion of the domestic wastewater is used for reuse, and loadings from these sources have been estimated by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Similar source loadings have also been estimated for the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program watersheds.

The methodology to derive the DPVs for stream reaches was provided in the TSD for the proposed rule (EPA, 2010b). In summary, the TN concentration from the watershed load was divided by the fraction of the flux at the downstream node of the given reach which reaches the estuary, yielding the DPV for that reach. For example, if the estuarine protective value was 1.0 mg/L TN, and half of the TN load from a given reach was delivered to the estuary (as estimated by the SAGT SPARROW model), then the DPV associated with this reach would be 2.0 mg/L TN. The idea of reversing the attenuation processes, starting with the estuarine protective value, from the estuary back upstream has merit, and if the model application for developing estuarine protective values was appropriate, this could produce usable results. However, the applicability of this method is dependent upon accurate estimation of current condition loadings based on accurate, best available input data specific to a given watershed, which has not been accomplished by the current SAGT SPARROW model application. Clearly, given these problems with the SAGT SPARROW application for deriving estuarine protective values and DPVs for streams, where locally-specific load estimates are available, they provide more appropriate estimations of loads to the estuaries than does the SPARROW model. Technically defensible and accepted load estimates do exist for Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others. These loading estimates should be used, along with data concerning estuarine conditions, to determine estuarine protective loads. In summary, the use of the SAGT SPARROW model output to estimate estuarine protective TN values used for development of regulatory numeric nutrient criteria is inappropriate, as the model was not developed for this purpose. Refinement of the regression model approach for a particular estuary, given sufficient data availability and resolution, could result in an appropriate tool for regulatory use. However, in its current incarnation, the SAGT SPARROW model should not be used to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's inland surface fresh waters. Other methods may be available for determining numeric nutrient criteria for those estuaries in Florida for which technically defensible loading estimates have been developed and accepted by state and/or federal agencies as being applicable to estuarine management activities.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3783Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.006

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners SPARROW and Estuarine Downstream Protection Values

• EPA makes the inappropriate assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries. In Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses serve as the desired endpoint to assess water quality management activities aimed at controlling nutrient loadings. Seagrass coverage has increased in each of these systems since the 1980s, indicating the success of watershed management actions. Therefore, it is difficult to justify additional load reductions where empirical data show such responses to management actions specifically developed to address water quality problems.

• Utilization of SPARROW to determine protective loads to Florida estuaries is inappropriate, as the regional model was not intended to be used for site-specific application in regulatory programs. USGS suggests that for local-scale use, estimated loads for actual time periods should be used. In Florida, loading estimates based on best available information exist for Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and should be used when evaluating estuarine protective loads.

• SPARROW model calibration fitted model coefficients based on data from sites in Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, so that the coefficients and explanatory variables providing the best fit for the entire model domain are not necessarily the same as would be found if the model were fit for a specific watershed or state. To utilize SPARROW model output to establish estuarine protective values and downstream protective values within streams of Florida, it woud be much more appropriate to limit the model's spatial domain to Florida or even a group of Florida watersheds, and derive explanatory variables and fitted model coefficients based on this more appropriate model domain.

• The SPARROW model was not validated, with calibration only for 2002 conditions using long-term gaged loads and atmospheric deposition loads detrended to 2002. It is also inappropriate to utilize a model which has not undergone validation under conditions other than those used for calibration. The use of a model for management decision making is predicated on the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions when observed inputs are provided. The robustness of the model is often determined by testing the model under varying inputs. After calibration, the model is validated under input conditions different than those used for calibration, and the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions with this different set of inputs attests to the ability of the model to be used as a predictive tool.

• Application of the SPARROW model does not incorporate the best available information at local scales, using only 1:500,000-scale hydrography and estimated loads not always based on all available data for a watershed. A more appropriate application would utilize information already available, as for loadings to Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and more refined hydrography to calibrate the model. It is important to understand, however, that the model is used only because of the EPA assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries, and thus some method is used to derive protective loads. For those estuaries with empirical data indicating that protective loads are not being exceeded, and with technically sound and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3784Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams defensible estimates of what the protective loads are, application of SPARROW is not only superfluous but wasteful of resources as well.

• The application of the reverse attenuation methodology to derive DPVs for stream reaches protective of downstream estuaries has merit, but is predicated on the model providing an accurate estimation of the protective value for a given estuary, which the SAGT SPARROW application does not provide. Where accepted estuarine loading estimates are available, a similar process could be utilized to derive DPVs. 

# Comment ID 1355-2.001.093

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Comments on SPARROW Application Used to Derive DPVs for Streams SPARROW (Spatially Referenced Regressions on Watershed attributes) is a modeling technique used to relate observed water quality data to watershed attributes. SPARROW uses a nonlinear regression equation describing the non-conservative transport of pollutants from a watershed through its hydrologic network. SPARROW predicts contaminant flux, concentrations, and yields (Schwarz et al., 2006). EPA developed proposed numeric nutrient criteria for the State of Florida's lakes and flowing waters, utilizing SPARROW results to develop Downstream Protection Values (DPVS) of Total Nitrogen (TN) concentrations for streams based on proposed protective loads for the receiving estuaries (EPA, 2010a). This review provides a summary of the SPARROW application utilized to derive estuarine protective water quality values and stream DPVs by EPA for the proposed numeric nutrient criteria for the State of Florida's lakes and flowing waters. Following this summary, the methodology used for deriving estuarine loads and protective values, and DPVs for Florida streams, are provided, including comments on the appropriateness of the application for this purpose. Summary of SPARROW An application of the SPARROW model was utilized by EPA for developing protective TN loads to Florida estuaries, and for developing DPVs for streams. The specific model is the South Atlantic, Gulf, and Tennessee (SAGT) regional SPARROW model (EPA, 2010a). Three versions of this model were developed by USGS, Models A, B, and C (Hoos and McMahon, 2009), with the authors recommending use of Model B predictions. The SAGT SPARROW application utilizes the Enhanced River Reach File 2.0 (ERF1_2) based on EPA's 1:500,000­ scale reach file (Hoos and McMahon, 2009). The ERF1_2 contains stream discharge, time of travel, and reservoir information for each reach. Mean annual nitrogen loads were developed for 2002 (Hoos et al., 2008) from various sources. The model predicts mean annual instream nitrogen loads for each reach of the model, and to the downstream estuaries which receive these loads. The conceptual model determines the flux from a given reach i as the sum of 1) the load generated within upstream

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3785Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams reaches and transported to the reach and 2) the load originating within the reach's incremental watershed and delivered to the reach segment. This is given by Original comment letter contains additional information in an equation and language describing the terms of the equation on (Pages 31-32). See original comment letter. A description of the input data is provided in Hoos et al. (2008). A summary description of the data sources used for each of the variables listed above (source input, physical landscape, stream, and reservoir variables) is provided here. Source input variables:

• Nitrogen mass in permitted wastewater discharge - Estimates of point source discharge loadings were compiled by McMahon et al. (2007) for 2002. The loads from point sources within the SAGT domain were estimated from data obtained from EPA's Permit Compliance System database and state databases. Loads were assigned to reach catchments based on location data obtained from the databases.

• Wet deposition of inorganic nitrogen - Estimates of wet deposition were developed using data for wet deposition of inorganic nitrogen obtained from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program for 1990-2005. A detrending procedure was applied at each station to produce a detrended estimate of annual load for the base year of 2002 (Hoos et al., 2008). The estimates were interpolated to a 5-km grid using an inverse-distance weighting method, and an estimate for each reach catchment was derived.

• Area of impervious surface - The 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) was used to derive impervious surface area in each catchment. The NLCD provides percent impervious surface area for each 30-m grid cell, which were multiplied by the cell area and summed for each reach catchment (Hoos et al., 2008).

• Nitrogen mass in commercial fertilizer applied to agricultural land - Estimates of nitrogen loading due to fertilizer application on agricultural lands for 2002 were based on the methods provided in Ruddy et al. (2006). Estimates were developed based on county-level data, which were derived from information on annual sales data and Census of Agriculture data. County-level loads were apportioned to the 30-m grid cells containing agricultural lands from the NLCD.

• Nitrogen mass in manure from livestock production - Estimates of manure nitrogen loading were based on countylevel livestock population data from the Census of Agriculture for 2002 (Ruddy et al., 2006; Hoos et al., 2008). Countylevel loads were apportioned to the 30-m grid cells containing agricultural lands from the NLCD. Physical landscape variables:

• Ln of depth (cm) to bedrock - Estimates of depth to bedrock were obtained from the 1:250,000-scale natural Resource Conservation Service State Soil Geographic data (Hoos et al., 2008), with the depth for a given catchment derived from the depths of the soil mapping units within the catchment.

• Ln of mean annual precipitation (mm) - Estimates of mean annual precipitation were obtained from the Parameterelevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) developed by Oregon State University. This model interpolates a continuous precipitation surface with consideration of digital elevation model information. The surfaces are distributed as 800-m resolution raster datasets (Oregon State University, PRISM Group, 2007). The precipitation data were averaged within each reach catchment.

• Fractions of catchment in HLR 2, in HLR 16, in HLR 4, and in HLRs 6, 9, or 11 - Hydrologic landscape regions (HLRs) were delineated as described in Wolock et al. (2004). Twenty HLRs were defined, based on similarities in land-surface

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3786Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams form, geologic texture, and climate characteristics, with most of Florida in HLRs 1 and 2. Original comment letter contains additional information as an equation and language describing the terms of the equation on page 34. See original comment letter. To estimate TN concentrations specific to individual reaches that are commensurate with the downstream estuary protective TN value (DPVs for streams), the concentration of TN reaching the estuary from the entire watershed is apportioned back upstream through the hydrologic network, with the specific reach concentrations being determined by the amount of load attenuation that occurred in the loading estimation algorithm in the SAGT SPARROW model. The model tracks the fraction of the flux at each downstream node that reaches the estuary, so that a concentration for each reach can be estimated which results in achievement of the downstream estuary protective load. Comments on Use of SPARROW for Deriving Protective TN Loading Estimates for Estuaries and Corresponding DPVs For Streams EPA developed protective TN loading estimates for Florida estuaries to derive water quality criteria in flowing waters that ensured protection of designated uses in the estuaries. The SAGT SPARROW model was run for current conditions, defined as 2002 conditions, and for background conditions, defined as current conditions less the anthropogenic loadings from point sources, urban land use, fertilizer, and manure. The protective load was then determined as the midpoint between these two loads, under the assumption that "...a defensible estimate of the protective TN load must be between this value and the current TN loading rate." (EPA, 2010b). This is an inappropriate assumption for at least some of the Florida estuaries, as the current loading to Tampa Bay (2003- 2007) has been shown to meet the TMDL for the bay (Tampa Bay Estuary Program and Janicki Environmental, 2009). The Tampa Bay Estuary Program has developed a technically sound relationship between nitrogen loadings to the bay and the ecological health of the bay, and nitrogen management based on maintaining loadings at or below these levels has resulted in significant increases in seagrass acreage in the bay. The SAGT SPARROW model used mean annual nitrogen load as the response variable in the SPARROW regression equation provided above. The model was calibrated by fitting the model coefficients Original comment letter contains additional information as an equation and language describing the terms of the equation on page 35. See original comment letter. to measured TN loads from 331 sites within the entire SAGT spatial domain, which includes portions or all of the states of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida. As noted by other reviews (FDEP, 2009), "...the USGS has acknowledged that the regional model was not intended to be used for sitespecific application in regulatory programs without significant development of site-specific information..." Calibration of the model coefficients over the spatial domain represented by the Southeastern US provides for comparison of loadings and loading mechanisms on a regional basis. This does not, however, provide an appropriate model for use in setting loading limits in a single estuarine watershed. This is especially true for an estuary for which loading estimates have been compiled and utilized effectively as part of a nitrogen management strategy for almost two decades, as in Tampa Bay. As noted in Hoos et al. (2008), "For local-scale interpretations use of loads estimated for actual time periods and employing a more detailed regression analysis, such as stepwise linear regression and consideration of additional explanatory variables, is suggested." It is inappropriate to utilize the large-scale model for evaluation of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3787Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams loadings at the estuarine watershed scale. EPA also notes that, "Where the SPARROW model does not estimate loading from a portion of the watershed of an estuary, U.S. EPA assumed that the yield of TN delivered to estuarine waters per square kilometer in that portion of the watershed was the same as in the portion covered by SPARROW" (EPA, 2010b). This assumption is inappropriate, and dependent upon the relative size of the watershed for which SPARROW does not estimate loadings to that of the total watershed, could result in significant over- or under-predictions of watershed loadings. It is also inappropriate to utilize a model which has not undergone validation under conditions other than those used for calibration. The use of a model for management decision making is predicated on the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions when observed inputs are provided. The robustness of the model is often determined by testing the model under varying inputs. After calibration, the model is validated under input conditions different than those used for calibration, and the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions with this different set of inputs attests to the ability of the model to be used as a predictive tool. The SAGT SPARROW model was not validated. The SAGT SPARROW Model B used by EPA for deriving the protective TN loadings evaluated a list of potential explanatory variables for significance, as described in Hoos and McMahon (2009). It is possible that were the model applied only to a specific watershed, the significant explanatory variables would be different than that group selected from the model covering the entire southeastern US. Model calibration to a specific watershed or specific geomorphologic region would be more appropriate for derivation of significant explanatory variables when considering use of the model results for regulatory purposes. This is especially applicable to Florida, where watershed physical characteristics are typically very different from those in the remainder of the southeast. The hydrologic network utilized by the SAGT SPARROW model is inappropriate for representing a realistic depiction of the actual travel paths for watershed loadings at the estuary watershed scale. The Enhanced River Reach File 2.0 (ERF1_2) is based on the USEPA's 1:500,000-scale Reach File 1 (Hoos et al., 2008). This resolution is insufficient to represent all but the grossest scale of hydrography. For those reaches with downstream nodes where loading data are available, the model-predicted loads are set equal to observed loads, so the model upstream hydrography plays no role in determining the load. However, calibration of the model coefficients using insufficiently resolved hydrography results in errors when utilizing these model coefficients in reaches downstream of nodes where observed loads exist, in ungaged areas. With insufficiently resolved hydrography in areas upstream of observed loads, and shorter travel paths due to this hydrography than those that actually exist, calibration of the model coefficients to recreate observed loads may result in overly large model load attenuation rates. It is likely that these rates applied to those areas for which no observed loads were utilized by the SPARROW model result in too much attenuation of model loads from these areas, so that the predicted loads from these areas are lower than they should be. Under-prediction of loadings for both the 2002 period and the background conditions would result, with those watersheds with appreciably large proportions of their watersheds in ungaged areas being more prone to underestimation of loadings. The SAGT SPARROW model does not consider non-contributing areas of the watershed. In the Tampa Bay watershed, the hydrology of relatively large areas of the eastern watershed has been modified by mining activities, resulting in large areas from which runoff is directed through NPDES monitored outfalls. Since point source loadings are also incorporated into the SPARROW loadings, any estimates of non-NPDES runoff from these areas results in additional loading from the watershed. In the Tampa Bay watershed, these areas are within gaged basins. Since the calibration of

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3788Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the model coefficients is based on matching observed loadings to model predictions, and the model loadings may be greater than those that would be predicted were the runoff loads from these non-contributing areas discounted, then estimation of the level of attenuation of loads at the gages is likely too high. The ERF1_2 hydrography file used as model input contains stream reach attributes including travel time within the reach (Hoos and McMahon, 2009). Model coefficients are calibrated for two reach classes for the SAGT SPARROW Model B, those with mean flows <28 m3/s, and those with mean flows >28 m3/sec (Hoos and McMahon, 2009). The ERF1_2 file was based on USEPA's 1- 500,000-scale Reach File 1, with enhancements to support water quality modeling (Nolan et al., 2002). Reach travel times were estimated as the quotient of the reach length and mean reach velocity (Nolan et al., 2002). Given the 1:500,000-scale of the hydrography, it is unlikely that accurate estimates of reach time-of-travel resulted, making the model calibration for the coefficients associated with time of travel inappropriate. The resolution of the hydrography makes it likely that the reach lengths are less than would be found using more refined hydrography, so that attenuation is overestimated to match model loads to observed loads. Applying these overly high attenuation rates to areas downstream of gages then results in loadings lower than what would be expected given greater resolution of hydrography. More appropriate information may exist for use in calculating input loading data for a given estuary than utilized by the SAGT SPARROW model. For example, FDEP has compared the sites from which data were used for flows and water quality by SAGT SPARROW and available sites within the Tampa Bay watershed (FDEP, 2010a). In summary, it was found that for the SAGT SPARROW model:

• more appropriate flow and water quality data were available for loadings from Lake Tarpon, with the SAGT SPARROW model loads estimated from flow and water quality upstream of the lake,

• no reservoir reach was included on Rocky Creek,

• data for flow and water quality are available for Sweetwater Creek, which was not used,

• no reservoir reach was included for the Hillsborough River, and water quality data were used from multiple sites, one strongly tidally influenced, to match with flows over the dam to estimate loads,

• neither Crystal Springs (upstream of the Hillsborough River dam) nor Sulphur Springs (downstream of the dam) were included,

• no accounting was made of water exchange between the Hillsborough River and the Tampa Bypass Canal,

• no data were used for loadings from the Tampa Bypass Canal,

• for Delaney Creek, water quality data from a tidally influenced station were used,

• in the Alafia River, no accounting was made for potable water supply withdrawals, for flows from Lithia Springs, or for loads from Buckhorn Springs, where both springs are downstream of the flow gage used for load estimation,

• in the Manatee River, loads were estimated using flow and water quality data upstream of Lake Manatee, so that no accounting was made for flows from the reservoir to the estuary,

• in the Braden River, loads were estimated using flows contributing to Lake Ward, but not those exiting the lake to the estuarine portion of the river Use of estuary-specific best available data for model input is much more appropriate when deriving load estimates for use in regulatory decision making. The SAGT SPARROW model does not apply any attenuation to those reaches identified as shoreline reaches, as noted in Schwarz et al. (2006). As noted in communications between FDEP and USGS staff (FDEP, 2010a), this can result in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3789Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams large areas having watershed loads generated and directly entering the estuary. This leads to a misrepresentation of the loads from these areas reaching the estuaries. Atmospheric deposition to watersheds was estimated using detrended estimates of mean annual wet deposition (Hoos et al., 2008). In communications between FDEP and USGS staff (FDEP, pers. comm. 2, 2010), it was noted that data in addition to that utilized by USGS were available for Florida. These additional data include the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study (TBADS) site on the eastern shore of Old Tampa Bay, where data were collected during 1996-2006, and other state and local agency sites. Use of these site-specific data, in addition to the data used from NADP NTN sites, would be more appropriate when developing loads for the Tampa Bay estuary. This is especially important as the background loading is that attributed to atmospheric deposition alone, with all other source categories corresponding to anthropogenic loadings removed. Problems with the point source data utilized for the SAGT SPARROW model for Florida were also identified in questions submitted by FDEP to USGS staff (FDEP, 2010a). It was noted that more than 60 facilities did not have calculated nitrogen loads, 42 facilities identified in the discharger spreadsheet were not found in the FDEP NPDES list, and FDEP identified 182 facilities not on the USGS list. Additionally, FDEP noted that loadings from facilities with multiple outfalls were typically assigned to the facility location. As stated previously, for development of loadings from the watershed of a given estuary, it is most appropriate to utilize the best available information and knowledge, which is often held by local agencies. For the Tampa Bay watershed, a database of point source loadings and loading discharge locations has been maintained for data from 1985 through present. Reuse of point source discharge for irrigation or industrial processing, and the associated loads reaching the estuary, were not considered in the SAGT SPARROW model. As noted in communications between FDEP and USGS staff (FDEP, 2010a), only loads estimated from surface water discharges, as estimated from data obtained from EPA PCS, were included in the model input files. This is likely to result in an underestimate of loadings where reuse practices are prevalent. In the Tampa Bay watershed, a large proportion of the domestic wastewater is used for reuse, and loadings from these sources have been estimated by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Similar source loadings have also been estimated for the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program watersheds. The methodology to derive the DPVs for stream reaches was provided in the TSD for the proposed rule (EPA, 2010b). In summary, the TN concentration from the watershed load was divided by the fraction of the flux at the downstream node of the given reach which reaches the estuary, yielding the DPV for that reach. For example, if the estuarine protective value was 1.0 mg/L TN, and half of the TN load from a given reach was delivered to the estuary (as estimated by the SAGT SPARROW model), then the DPV associated with this reach would be 2.0 mg/L TN. The idea of reversing the attenuation processes, starting with the estuarine protective value, from the estuary back upstream has merit, and if the model application for developing estuarine protective values was appropriate, this could produce usable results. However, the applicability of this method is dependent upon accurate estimation of current condition loadings based on accurate, best available input data specific to a given watershed, which has not been accomplished by the current SAGT SPARROW model application. Clearly, given these problems with the SAGT SPARROW application for deriving estuarine protective values and DPVs for streams, where locally-specific load estimates are available, they provide more appropriate estimations of loads to the estuaries than does the SPARROW model. Technically defensible and accepted load estimates do exist for Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others. These loading estimates should be

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3790Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams used, along with data concerning estuarine conditions, to determine estuarine protective loads. In summary, the use of the SAGT SPARROW model output to estimate estuarine protective TN values used for development of regulatory numeric nutrient criteria is inappropriate, as the model was not developed for this purpose. Refinement of the regression model approach for a particular estuary, given sufficient data availability and resolution, could result in an appropriate tool for regulatory use. However, in its current incarnation, the SAGT SPARROW model should not be used to establish numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's inland surface fresh waters. Other methods may be available for determining numeric nutrient criteria for those estuaries in Florida for which technically defensible loading estimates have been developed and accepted by state and/or federal agencies as being applicable to estuarine management activities. 

# Comment ID 1356-1.001.002

Author Name: Hayes D. Organization: Manatee Chamber of Commerce Manatee County supports EPA's decision to defer the establishment of Downstream Protective Values (DPVs) for flowing streams that discharge to estuaries until the estuarine criteria are established in October 2011. However, it is imperative that EPA staff and contractors work closely with these programs during the process of establishing criteria for Florida west coast estuaries and their tributaries and to consider adopting the criteria recommended in their respective responses to EPA (Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium and Sarasota Bay Estuary Program comments, attached).



# Comment ID 1360-1.001.002

Author Name: Cook R. Organization: Daytona Beach Utilities Department

- The SPARROW model does not adequately account for these naturally occurring circumstances. The model also uses the whole SE portion of the United States to establish a model for Florida. The geology of the SE United States is very different from that of Florida and is therefore an inappropriate use of the model. The U.S Geological Survey has commented that this model was designed for very large water bodies, such as the Mississippi River Delta. 

# Comment ID 1361-1.001.003

Author Name: * * Organization: North Carolina Division of Water Quality

- The NCDWQ concurs with EPA's statements that "The protective TN load is expected to vary widely

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3791Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams among...estuaries because they differ significantly in their size and physical and biological attributes. For example, well flushed estuaries are able to receive TN loading without adverse effect compared to poorly flushed estuaries." [Reference: EPA -HQ-OW- 2009-0596, FRL-9105-1, p. 4200, 1st column, (ii)] 

# Comment ID 1363-1.001.005

Author Name: Butler N. Organization: Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. 4. EPA Must Use A Different Approach To Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria For Estuaries. Even though the criteria for estuaries are not specifically addressed in EPA's Proposed Rule, it is Smurfit-Stone's understanding that EPA intends to use the same fundamental approach it used for lakes and flowing waters to establish numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries in the State of Florida. If this is the case, most - if not all - of the comments made by Smurfit-Stone, FPPAEA and AF&PA regarding the Proposed Rule will be applicable to EPA's approach for estuaries. EPA is strongly encouraged to implement a different approach that addresses the technical and other concerns raised in these comments before it proposes numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries in January 2011. In conclusion, Smurfit-Stone recommends that EPA modify the Proposed Rule to address the significant issues raised by the company, FPPAEA and AF&PA, and prevent unintended consequences by:

• Modifying the Proposed Rule to allow the State to use FDEP's existing, approved TMDL for the Lower St. John's River in lieu of the federal, generic numeric nutrient criteria proposed by the Agency;

• Considering that inorganic forms of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are not readily bioavailable and revising the Proposed Rule to regulate only those forms of nutrients that impair water quality and threaten designated uses;

• Conducting a more robust evaluation of the economic costs of the Proposed Rule, including the costs of dealing with the unintended consequences of implementation of nutrient reduction technology such as sludge management; and

• Revising its approach for establishing numeric nutrient criteria prior to issuing proposed criteria for Florida estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1364-1.001.016

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida The EPA publication of the Rule acknowledges the agency was unable to set nutrient standards at the levels where water bodies actually exhibit negative responses to nutrient pollution. Instead, the EPA utilized a broad statistical method, the United States Geological Survey' (USGS) SPARROW model, to establish large-scale, regional criteria. As the USGS has acknowledged, the SPARROW model does not work on a regional scale for water bodies with significant

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3792Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams ground water influence. Therefore, Lee County supports EPA's decision to delay finalizing promulgation of the "Downstream Protection Values" related to estuary protection to the 2011 "Estuary and Coastal Rulemaking." This additional time should allow for a more science-based, and site specific, approach. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.015

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works pg. 13 "Of the ten downstream estuaries not completely evaluated to date, seven are in south Florida and receive TN loads from highly managed canals and waterways" This calls into question EPA's ability to create scientifically valid downstream protective values for South Florida estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.021

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works p.107 No protective N loading could be calculated for Biscayne Bay - How does EPA intend to proceed in determining TN criteria for its fresh water tributaries? Various local entities (i.e., Miami-Dade DERM, Florida International University, National Parks, etc.) maintain data on nutrient concentrations and algae blooms and they should be consulted indetermining what the downstream protective values should be. Their data may also be more conducive to a doseresponse relationship since it is likely based on monitoring rather than modeling. The proposed nutrient criteria should not be applied to those watersheds for which EPA does not have sufficient data to propose downstream protective values. Rather, the South Florida region criteria should be developed separately. SPARROW is not an appropriate model to use to estimate downstream protection values since many smaller streams are not recognized by SPARROW. Refer to local counties or South Florida Water Management Districts for appropriate models. The South Florida region is too large and biogeochemically diverse. Under the proposed rule, waters that are tributary to the Gulf of Mexico will have the same standards applied as those that are tributary to Biscayne Bay. Subdivide after DEP's Level IV Subecoregions for Florida Small / Wadeable Streams by Griffith 1994 as shown in Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Waters. The canals also need to be subdivided based on whether nitrogen or phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for the canal and whether nitrogen or phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for the downstream estuary. 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.022

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works p. 108 "SPARROW is calibrated across a larger area, but it utilizes a large amount of Florida site-specific data and it

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3793Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams explains 96% of the variation in observed loads from monitoring sites" Does this mean that SPARROW explains 96% of the variation observed at each monitoring site, in each watershed, or within the region as a whole? How well did SPARROW predict variation within Florida? How well did it predict variation in each of the Florida regions, especially in South Florida? It is possible for a model to work very well over a broad scale but less well on a small scale where there is less chance for offsetting errors. Since the nutrient criteria will be implemented on a small scale - individual waterways (some of which SPARROW does not recognize) during the TMDL process, the model used to set the criteria needs to function well on the same scale. Since there was no load data available for South Florida, it is unknown if SPARROW would perform as well in this region. Use one of the South Florida Water Management District's or other local models instead. Did EPA consider using any of the nationally known watershed models, such as SWAT, SWMM, XPSWMM, etc? 

# Comment ID 1368-1.001.023

Author Name: Waters D. Organization: City of Miami Department of Public Works p. 113 "Because the stream network utilized by the SAGT-SPARROW watershed model (ERF1) does not recognize all of the smaller streams in Florida (i.e., it is on a larger scale), EPA mapped WBIDs to the applicable watershed-scale unit, or "incremental watersheds," of the ERF1 reaches, assigning to each WBID the fraction of TN delivered estimated for the ERF1 reach whose incremental watershed includes the WBID. Where the WBID includes portions of the incremental watersheds of more than one ERF1 reach, EPA computed a weighted average based on the proportion of WBID area in the watershed of each ERF1 reach." This is an inappropriate method because the proportion of TN delivered is not necessarily directly correlated with the area of the WBID. This method does not take into account the potential for differing nutrient loading characteristics among watersheds that are the same size. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.006

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Tampa Bay efforts in Water Quality The Tampa Bay community realized years ago that specific criteria were needed and led the charge to develop standards to protect water quality and seagrass health. The changes seen in Tampa Bay since the 1970s are due to the adaptive management strategies by the state and local stakeholders to restore and preserve the Bay. Those actions include:

- Compliance with the Grizzle-Figg Act

- Improved stormwater regulations

- Stakeholder nutrient reduction projects and programs

- Strong local policies like the Fertilizer Ordinance, which alone is estimated to remove 84 tons of nitrogen from the bay.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3794Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Based on the extensive scientific record, the existing standards put in place for Tampa Bay have achieved full aquatic life protection, as shown through the restoration of seagrass habitat. EPA's guidance document states that the most comprehensive and scientifically defensible approach to developing numeric nutrient criteria is to relate nutrients to a measure biological response. 

# Comment ID 1431-1.001.007

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Pinellas County is requesting that EPA support the Tampa Bay chlorophyll-a targets and the associated nutrient loads as site specific criteria for Tampa Bay. The Tampa Bay community has demonstrated their commitment to water quality and ecological improvements, their willingness to employ adaptive management strategies, and as a cohesive community we have achieved the desired goals and will continue those efforts. 

# Comment ID 1433-1.001.016

Author Name: McIndoe J. Organization: Alabama Department of Environmental Management The use of the USGS SPARROW model compounds this error by using a landscapebased model to back-calculate instream concentrations upstream of estuaries. The use of the model to estimate existing loading to estuaries is problematic because the model is calibrated using data collected over a long period without considering how land use changes in that same period may have been affecting nutrient transport and delivery to the stream network. In addition, the assumption that known impairments in estuaries, such as reduced clarity and seagrass coverages, are primarily attributable to existing levels of nitrogen is not a valid assumption. EPA states in the proposal that it believes that the protective nitrogen loads must lie somewhere between the background loads and the existing loads without demonstrating how the proposed TN criteria in flowing waters is not protective, even though these values represent a fairly significant reduction in loads for much of the stream network upstream of the estuaries. If EPA is going to use the SPARROW model to evaluate potential loading to the downstream estuaries, the model should be re-calibrated to the proposed instream TN criteria for flowing rivers and streams. Furthermore, the fact that EPA will soon be proposing numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries makes the SPARROW modeling and the proposed DPVs completely unnecessary. 

# Comment ID 1434-1.001.028

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3795Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

T25 III C(6)(b) Because the HSWCD has been made aware that EPA has delayed consideration of downstream protective values for estuaries (Silva 2010), we will not be making comments at this time relative to the impact, merit, or other aspects of the proposed DPV for estuaries; however, Highlands County reserves the right to review and comment on both the proposed DPVs tor lakes and on future proposals related to protective values for estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1474-1.001.146

Author Name: Herz W. Organization: The Fertilizer Institute EPA's proposed DPVs for estuaries suffer from many of the same flaws. However, EPA has announced that it will defer promulgation of DPVs for estuaries until 2011 when EPA plans to propose criteria for Florida estuaries and coastal waters and following a peer review of the scientific basis for these DPVs. See letter dated March 17, 2010, from Peter Silva, Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of Water to Michael Sole, Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. TFI will provide comments on DPVs for estuaries in the context of that rulemaking. 

# Comment ID 1477-1.001.018

Author Name: Rudd F. Organization: Florida Engineering Society Although the adoption of EPA's proposed stream criteria for protection of downstream estuaries has been deferred, it should be pointed out that USGS has acknowledged that the SPARROW model is not applicable in areas with significant groundwater inputs, which includes much of central and northeast Florida as well as south Florida. 

# Comment ID 1477-1.001.019

Author Name: Rudd F. Organization: Florida Engineering Society Site specific determination of Downstream Protection Values (DPV) using the SPARROW model is not appropriate given the model was calibrated at a regional scale and using very coarse estimates of hydrology.

• SPARROW model estimates of in-stream nitrogen losses are too low due to error caused by nitrogen loading from all sources and inaccurate stream velocities. 

# Comment ID 1480-2.001.001

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3796Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Wong E. Organization: City of Northport EPA's stream criteria for protection of downstream estuaries are not scientifically valid

• Proposed criteria are based on inappropriate application of USGS' SPARROW model

• USGS acknowledges that model not applicable in areas with significant groundwater inputs, which includes much of Central and Northeast Florida (in addition to South Florida)

• Site-specific determination of Downstream Protection Values (DPV) not appropriate given that model was calibrated at regional scale and given course hydrology

• Model estimates of in-stream nitrogen losses are too low due to error caused by lack of nitrogen loading from all sources and inaccurate stream velocities

• Method to determine allowable load is not scientifically valid

• Presumes all Florida estuaries are impaired, and existing data and research demonstrates this to not be accurate

• Target established for protection of coastal waters is arbitrary based on mid-point between current loads and oversimplified calculation of background loads

• Resultant DPVs are more stringent than necessary

• Over 80% of DEP's "reference" or pristine sites exceed the criteria and would be deemed impaired

• Initial assessments by FDEP suggest the in-stream criteria are inherently protective of downstream waters making it un-necessary to have independent downstream protection values. 

# Comment ID 1481-1.001.029

Author Name: Ford C. Organization: Highlands County Natural Resources Department III C(6)(b) Because Highlands County has been made aware that EPA has delayed consideration of downstream protective values for estuaries (Silva 2010), we will not be making comments at this time relative to the impact, merit, or other aspects of the proposed DPV for estuaries; however, Highlands County reserves the right to review and comment on both the proposed DPVs for lakes and on future proposals related to protective values for estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1530.001.008

Author Name: Aschauer Jr. F. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP on behalf of the Clay County Utility Authority The approach used to define Downstream Protection Values[1] for estuaries contains similarly broad assumptions that are far inferior to the information contained in existing TMDLs. The required reduction in load to support the calculationof Downstream Protection Values (a statewide 50 percent reduction anthropogenic loading) is not based on any sitespecific information or direct calculation, but merely on a review of the results of existing studies and the following justification provided in the TSD: 1) an observation that "In general, larger load reductions are recommended where

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3797Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams anthropogenic loading has increased loads by the largest margin"; and 2) comparison of the range of recommended reductions from TMDLs and Pollutant Load Reduction Goals (PLRGs) in Florida (3% to 63%) to the range in load reductions associated with the Proposed Rule (5% to 40%). Similar to the reference condition approach, this approach can provide a rough estimate for sites when no other information is available. The TSD calculations supporting the Proposed Rule specifically cites eleven nutrient-related TMDL documents that have been finalized for Florida estuaries (along with seven that have been drafted or proposed) addressing verified impairments in more than 55 Waterbody Identifications (WBIDs). The use of a generic and poorly justified load reduction target at sites where detailed analyses have already been conducted should be replaced on a site-specific basis with the results of those studies. [1] CCUA acknowledges the March 17,2010 letter from Assistant Administrator Peter S. Silva to FDEP Secretary Michael Sole which notes that EPA "has decided to delay finalizing promulgation of the 'downstream protection values,' or DPVs with respect to downstream estuary protection and to address this issue in the 2011 estuary and coastal rulemaking." A copy of the letter is attached as Appendix H. However, because EPA's decision to delay consideration of the Downstream Protection Values to next year was not noticed in the Federal Register, CCUA decided to retain its comments on the Downstream Protection Values that were prepared prior to the March 17, 2010 letter of Assistant Administrator Silva and provide them to EPA herein. That said, CCUA is relying on the EPA's position in the March 17,2010 letter from Assistant Administrator Silva in its decision not to develop any additional comments directed towards the Downstream Protection Values other than those that are included herein. Notwithstanding CCUA's decision to retain its comments towards the Downstream Protection Values herein, CCUA reserves the right to add additional comments addressed towards any future efforts of the EPA to promulgate Downstream Protection Values as part of any rulemaking effort, at any time whatsoever, including, but not limited to, any rulemaking effort by the EPA in the latter part of 2010 or later, whether such rulemaking effort changes the method of calculating Downstream Protection Values or not. 

# Comment ID 1610.001.002

Author Name: Haycock M. Organization: Tropicana Products, Inc. To consider the proposed EPA rulemaking in its proper context, we must keep in mind the science-based approach and visible environmental benefits of The Tampa Bay Estuary Program. As you know, Congress created this program in 1991 to coordinate efforts to restore and protect Florida's largest open-water estuary. This regional alliance has been called the gold standard among u.s. government efforts to restore coastal water quality and habitats, in part, because it has already realized the dream of expanding sea grasses in Tampa Bay to coverage levels not seen since the 1950s, half a century ago. We all would be well-served by a thorough review of the proven approach and demonstrable environmental benefits that the Nitrogen Management Consortium has delivered. Membership of this public-private partnership includes government entities, including cities and counties regulated under stormwater discharge permits, in addition to a broad array of industries that discharge treated wastewater to surface waters consistent with the terms and conditions of individual discharge permits issued under Florida's EPA-approved NPDES program. This diverse collection of interests has come together in a cooperative effort to control nitrogen discharges to Tampa Bay by collectively meeting conservative nitrogen load caps imposed through a 1998 EPA TMDL.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3798Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Under normal circumstances, treated wastewater from Tropicana's Bradenton Plant is disposed of through an injection well system, as authorized by a State-issued permit, and is not discharged to adjacent surface waters. However, Tropicana holds an NPDES permit for the Bradenton facility, which allows a surface water discharge to the estuarine portion of the Manatee River in event the injection well disposal system becomes unavailable. Tropicana's NPDES permit includes an allocation for total nitrogen (TN). In a recent Consortium effort to reallocate TN loads among the parties, Tropicana participated in negotiations that resulted in Tropicana agreeing to a reduced TN allocation in its NPDES permit. Reducing the Tropicana load allocation provided an additional allocation to a number of municipal and county government Consortium members, which assured their ability to meet the Consortium's nitrogen management goals. The Nitrogen Management Consortium's approach has been very successful. Because of its efforts, Tampa Bay is consistently meeting protective chlorophyll-a targets and, as already mentioned, sea grasses have expanded to reach levels of coverage not seen for half a century, since the 1950s. Tampa Bay -- through the efforts of the Consortium, in conjunction with State caps on nutrient discharges to the Bay from domestic wastewater sources --is meeting its designated use. The vast majority of the bay is indeed fishable and swimmable, supporting lush sea grass meadows and robust populations of game and bait fish. Existing total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads are indeed protective of the bay. 

# Comment ID 1610.001.005

Author Name: Haycock M. Organization: Tropicana Products, Inc. Successful regional alliances, such as the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, and innovative public-private partnerships, such as the Nitrogen Management Consortium, will be severely compromised by the imposition of much less refined statewide or regional numeric nutrient criteria, such as those proposed by the EPA rule. Of particular concern to Tropicana is EPA's attempt to adapt output files from the USGS SPARROW model to estimate what acceptable nutrient loads to the bay would be. As noted, existing nutrient loads are supporting designated uses within the bay. Applying the SPARROW model, nutrient loads to Tampa Bay would have to be reduced dramatically, notwithstanding real world data and analyses to the contrary. The inapplicability of the SPARROW model is further demonstrated by the fact that the Downstream Protective Values (DPVs) extrapolated from this model result in target nutrient concentrations that are lower than those associated with undeveloped lands. The Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) for undeveloped lands far exceed the DPVs. For Tampa Bay, DPVs for TN range from a low of 0.56 mgll to a high of 1.11 mgll (a 40% to 70% reduction from the Instream Protective Values EPA has proposed for tributaries to the bay). Representative EMCs for undeveloped lands include 0.70 mgll TN for natural areas (Harper 2004) and 1.09 for pine flatwoods (FDEP 2004)[1]. Modeling results that would require nutrient loads to be reduced below natural background reflect errors in the model chosen, its application and assumptions applied. Use of the SPARROW model, especially as applied to Tampa Bay, is unsupportable. [1] Additionally, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection applied EPA's proposed Downstream Protective

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3799Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Values to its highly studied and well documented minimally disturbed reference or benchmark waters and found that 85% of Florida's reference streams would fail to comply with EPA's proposed DPVs. If 85% of the State's most pristine waters would exceed the DPVs, it is likely that 95% or more of Florida streams would exceed the DPVs and be considered impaired and in need of restoration under the TMDL program. 

# Comment ID 1610.001.006

Author Name: Haycock M. Organization: Tropicana Products, Inc. While the efficacy of the 1998 TMDL may still be an issue for debate, it is clear that the more site-specific effort of the Nitrogen Management Consortium is a more proven and effective approach to addressing nutrient loads to Tampa Bay than crude predictions from an extrapolation of output files from a USGS model last used to track nutrient sources throughout the entire Southeast. Accordingly, notwithstanding the EPA's efforts, Tropicana cannot support the proposed rule and urges EPA to set the existing nitrogen and phosphorus loads to Tampa Bay, as derived by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, as the nutrient criteria applicable to Tampa Bay. 

# Comment ID 1615-1.001.017

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Public Works Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: The choice of half of the current anthropogenic load as the protective load is indefensible. The justification for this choice includes:

• It is between the current load and the natural load;

• TMDLs done in Florida have resulted in a recommended 5% to 40% reduction in TN loads with a median of 38%; and,

• The percent reduction in Florida TMDLs (i.e., 38%) is similar to those recommended for well studied coastal systems outside of Florida. EPA concludes that the protective loads"are on average 25% lower than current TN loading" (page 107). Therefore, EPA's approach results in 50% of the detailed TMDLs to be under-protective and 50% to be over-protective. Therefore, all of these TMDLs would require a Federal SSAC to be valid (page 123), even though the 50% reduction in existing anthropogenic loads is arbitrary. 

# Comment ID 1642-1.001.004

Author Name: Tilton A. Organization: Water Resources Group on behalf of Johnson Engineering, Inc.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3800Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

3. The phosphorus values from the Peninsula Region vs. the Bone Valley Region are very different. The Peace River, in the Bone Valley Region and nearby is the Caloosahatchee River in the Peninsula Region both ending in the Gulf of Mexico have very different targets for water quality. How is one okay with more than 6 times the phosphorus of the other, but all allegedly contributing to red tide in the Gulf of Mexico? 

# Comment ID 1647-1.001.024

Author Name: Kates K. Organization: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association EPA's Utilization of the SPARROW Model The EPA has inappropriately utilized the USGS SPARROW model in its attempt to determine downstream protection values (DPVs) for lakes and estuaries. The USGS has acknowledged that this model is not applicable in areas with significant groundwater inputs, which includes much of Central and Northeast Florida (in addition to South Florida). Additionally, the SPARROW model was designed for large scale watersheds. The site-specific determination of DPVs is not appropriate given that the model was calibrated at a regional scale and given coarse hydrology (FDEP 2010b). 

# Comment ID 1671-1.001.005

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection 3) Criteria for the Protection of Estuaries The Department is pleased that EPA recognizes the benefit of delaying these provisions until the necessary water quality targets for estuaries are known. We will continue to work with local scientists to develop these protective estuary values. However, it must be noted that downstream protection values for total nitrogen for the protection of estuaries and unnecessary because the in-stream protection values proposed by FDEP are inherently protective of the downstream estuaries. Additionally, the use of the SPARROW model in Florida does not produce accurate downstream protection values even if correct estuary loads are used. The SPARROW model is built upon a delineated stream network that is coarse and does not reflect the hue hydrology of Florida. This results in significant error when projecting necessary nitrogen values upstream. The SPARROW model also does not account for the influence of wetlands on total nitrogen values, which underestimates true nitrogen conditions of Florida streams. These types of errors produce faulty criteria that should not be adopted into federal regulations. Again the promulgation of criteria that does not reflect the true water quality dynamics of streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands as water flows from them towards estuaries will demand unnecessary process that overall weakens the protection of Florida's surface waters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3801Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1671-3.001.092

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection E. FDEP Proposed In-stream Protection Values are Protective of Downstream Estuaries FDEP believes that criteria derived from minimally disturbed streams will approximate the concentrations historically delivered to the downstream estuary prior to significant human development. Therefore, the criteria will be inherently protective of the estuaries. However, FDEP has also generated empirical data to demonstrate the inherent protectiveness of benchmark-based stream criteria (below). 

# Comment ID 1674-1.001.004

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Proposed Criteria for Protection of Downstream Estuarine Waters [40 CFR 131.43(c)(2)(iii)] EPA Expression: (A) The applicable criteria for a stream that flows into downstream estuary is the more stringent of the values from the preceding table in (c)(2)(i) or downstream protection values (DPVs) derived from the following equation to protect the downstream estuary. EPA's preset DPVs are listed in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for Florida's Inland Waters located at www.regulations.gov , Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0569, and calculated for each stream reach as the average reach specific concentration (Ci ) equal to the average reach-specific annual loading rate (Li) divided by the average reach-specific flow ( Qi ) where: Original comment letter contains additional information as an equation and the definitions of its terms. See original comment letter. DPVs may not exceed other criteria established for designated use protection in this section, nor result in an exceedance of other criteria for other water quality parameters established pursuant to Rule 62-302, F.A.C. (B) The State may calculate alternative DPVs as above for Ci except that Li is determined as a series of values for each reach in the upstream drainage area such that the sum of reach-specific incremental loading rates equals the target loading rate to the downstream water protective of downstream uses, taking into account that downstream reaches must reflect loads established for upstream reaches. Alternative DPVs may factor in additional nutrient attenuation provided by already existing landscape modifications or treatment systems, such as constructed wetlands or stormwater treatment areas. For alternative DPVs to become effective for Clean Water Act purposes, the State must provide public notice and opportunity for comment. (C) To use an alternative technical approach of comparable scientific rigor to quantitatively determine the protective load to the estuary and associated protective stream concentrations, the State must go through the process for a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3802Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Federal site-specific alternative criterion pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section. Comment 1: This Provision of the Federal Proposal is Not Necessary The in-stream protection criteria (as proposed by FDEP) are inherently protective of downstream uses. Additionally, in this circumstance, EPA can interpret federal requirements to not require that individual stream nutrient criteria provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters that also have nutrient criteria established to protect uses. Legal Analysis: Federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(b) state, "In designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the State shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and shall ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters." EPA has interpreted this provision to mean that each and every criteria established by a State must ensure the protection of downstream waters, however that interpretation is not necessary. A just as valid interpretation is that the State's standards (versus each component of its standards) as adopted must ensure the protection of downstream waters. When a State's water quality standards contain protective criteria for both upstream and downstream waters, then it can be argued that a State's standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of water quality standards of both the upstream and downstream waters. While estuarine numeric nutrient criteria will not be available until next year, once they are promulgated, Florida will have standards for the downstream waters that provide for the attainment and maintenance of estuaries and it is not necessary or reasonable to establish stream DPVs when the science needed to create the link between upstream and downstream is lacking. Technical consideration: This provision can also be met if it is demonstrated that the upstream criteria does in fact provide for the attainment and maintenance of downstream waters. In the case of the In-Stream Protection Values, as proposed by FDEP, several lines of evidence show that the in-stream protection values provide for the attainment and maintenance of both upstream and downstream waters.

• If the stream criteria were derived from streams with minimal anthropogenic inputs of nutrients, they would not be expected to cause an imbalance of flora or fauna in downstream waters because the downstream waters would have naturally adapted to the upstream waters nutrient conditions.

• The longitudinal study conducted by FDEP showed that nutrient conditions in undisturbed upstream waters inherently protect downstream waterbodies.

• Specific evaluations of known protective loads to estuaries reveal that concentrations necessary to achieve the FDEP proposed benchmark values inherently protect those estuaries.

Demonstration that FDEP Proposed In-stream Protection Values are Protective of Downstream Estuaries

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3803Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams If the long term concentration necessary to attain FDEP's proposed numeric nutrient criteria for streams is less than the long term concentration necessary to meet the protective estuary drainage area target, then the stream criteria is inherently protective. Apalachicola Bay, the St. Johns River Estuary, and Tampa Bay are provided as examples to illustrate that FDEP's proposed in-stream TN values are protective of downstream estuaries. Appendices A through C contain the information used to generate the "long term concentration necessary to meet a protective estuary target" contained in the table below. This evaluation does not take into account denitrification dynamics in upstream reaches. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Summary of long term concentrations necessary to protect the estuaries and streams from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Estimating the Long Term Concentration Necessary to Attain FDEP's Proposed Numeric Nutrient TN Criteria for Streams Numeric nutrient criteria developed from the distribution of nutrient concentrations at minimally disturbed benchmark sites are inherently protective of the healthy well balance populations of fish and wildlife. The FDEP proposed criteria are expressed as annual geometric mean values inclusive of the benchmark distribution. However, it is important to consider the fact that the geometric mean benchmark values are measures of central tendency used to represent a much wider range of variability both above and below these geometric means. This variability occurs both due to natural factors and factors inherent in sampling and testing procedures. Given this variability, waterbodies with long-term (multiyear) average nutrient concentrations fully achieving the magnitude of FDEP's proposed in-stream criteria will exceed the annual geometric mean based criteria with some frequency. The frequency of exceedance will be a function of both the long-term average and variability (inter-annual and within year variance). The nearer a stream's long-term average concentration is to the magnitude of the criterion, the more frequently it will be expected to exceed the annual geometric mean, such that a waterbody with a long term average right at the magnitude of the criterion will be expected to have a fifty percent exceedance frequency of the annual geometric mean. Inclusion of a return frequency test, such as no more than one exceedance in a three year period, will reduce the frequency of false positive exceedances; however, the fact remains that a long-term average well below the criteria will be necessary to consistently achieve the criteria two thirds of the time. The analysis discussed below was undertaken to estimate long term average (multiyear) level of nutrients required to confidently achieve the criteria when, as currently proposed by EPA, a one in three exceedance requirement of the annual geometric mean is added as an assessment or compliance requirement. As stated above, the exceedance frequency can be estimated based on the long-term average and an estimate of variability. The best estimate of variability for a stream fully achieving the criterion is calculated from the inter-annual variability (standard deviation) at the benchmark sites. Inter-annual waterbody standard deviations were calculated for both total phosphorus and total nitrogen for each nutrient region. The true long-term inter-annual standard deviation was calculated as the pooled interannual standard deviation of all benchmark WBIDs plus the pooled with-in year sampling standard deviation, such that: Original comment letter contains additional information as an equation of the true long-term inter-annual standard deviation was calculated as the pooled interannual standard deviation of all benchmark WBIDs plus the pooled with-in year sampling standard deviation. See original comment letter. The estimated true inter-annual standard deviations are listed in Table 1 by nutrient parameter and nutrient region. The

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3804Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams frequency with which a waterbody will exceed the criterion can be estimated using an assumed lognormal frequency distribution around its long-term average geometric mean concentration and the standard deviation values listed in Table 1. For example, a stream with a long-term average TP concentration of 0.054 mg/L would be expected to exceed the Panhandle stream criterion approximately 20% of the time on an annual basis (Figure A). Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. Estimated inter-annual standard deviations of natural log transformed TP and TN concentrations within Florida’s benchmark streams by nutrient regions. The values represent the best estimates of the expected year to year variability in annual geometric mean concentrations within streams that fully achieve the criterion and support the designated use (i.e., benchmark) from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3 contains the Long-term Geometric Mean necessary to consistently achieve the in-stream protection criteria proposed by FDEP expressed as an annual geometric mean not to be surpassed more than once in a three year period, using a 25% type I error rate. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure A. Probability of a Panhandle Benchmark stream at given long-term average concentration exceeding the 1 in 3 year component of the nutrient criteria for phosphorus. See original comment letter. Study to Document Downstream Effects of Naturally elevated Nutrients in Selected Florida Rivers/Estuaries DEP initiated the Nutrient Longitudinal Study during the summer of 2008 to evaluate downstream biological responses to naturally high upstream phosphorus levels. Biological responses to excess nutrients can be separated in space and time from enrichment sources-i.e., an adverse response to nutrients may occur well downstream from the actual enrichment. DEP's hypothesis is that within systems with low levels of human disturbance and intact ecological processes, naturally high levels of nutrients can usually be assimilated into the ecosystem without causing adverse biological responses to the streams or downstream estuaries because, the systems have evolved over time in conjunction with the existing nutrient regime. The goal of this study was to determine whether nutrient concentrations representative of the upper portion of the benchmark site distribution are protective of the designated use of downstream reaches.

Project Objectives The objectives of the study were as follows: (1) Collect physical, chemical, and biological data throughout the length of selected Florida river/estuary systems to establish the relationship between nutrient levels and adverse biological responses, including the most sensitive (generally downstream) reaches; and (2) Analyze the resulting dataset as one line of evidence in DEP's effort to establish numeric nutrient criteria, particularly relating to the protection of downstream waters. Project Description

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3805Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

The longitudinal study focused on relating the effects of nutrients on various biological systems, from upstream to downstream, including the most sensitive areas, which typically are slowly flowing lower reaches or estuaries. Two systems were studied: the Waccasassa River and Estuary and the Steinhatchee River and Estuary. Both rivers are in the Big Bend region of the state and the Peninsula nutrient region. Blue Spring in Levy County forms the source of the Waccasassa River, which flows south to the Gulf of Mexico. The Steinhatchee River originates in Lafayette County and flows south, forming the border between Taylor and Dixie Counties, and empties into the Gulf. Both systems were selected to represent conditions of relatively low human disturbance, meaning the existing nutrient concentrations represent minimal amounts of anthropogenic influence. Project Conclusion Total phosphorus at the upper Steinhatchee River exceeded the 90th percentile of the nutrient benchmark sites and TP in the Waccasassa estuary approached the 90th percentile, yet no adverse effects were observed in the sensitive estuarine reaches, where healthy seagrass communities and fisheries prevailed. This study found that chlorophyll a concentrations in both estuaries were below the 11 ug/L impairment threshold adopted in Chapter 62-303, F.A.C. Compared with their respective headwaters, organic nitrogen was higher in both the Waccasassa and Steinhatchee estuaries, probably as a result of input from the extensive Spartina and Juncus marshes. This study, conducted at two minimally disturbed river/estuary systems, supports the position that establishing nutrient criteria at the 90th percentile of the reference site distribution is protective of the biological integrity of sensitive downstream waters. A full write up of this study is contained in Appendix D.

Comment 2: According the USGS, the application of SPARROW is not appropriate for certain covered estuary drainage areas The USGS commented that it would be inappropriate to run SPARROW nutrient model analyses within certain basins in Florida, including estuary drainage areas that contain significant ground water influence on surface water flows and areas with altered hydrology. This was based on the fact that it is difficult to account for nutrient inflows and outflows among drainage areas under which aquifer transport occurs and among drainage areas with extensively human-altered surface water hydrology. Analysis:

USGS recommended basin exclusions for SPARROW analysis The U.S. Geological Survey's Open-File report 2008-1163 (Data to Support Statistical Modeling of Instream Nutrient Load Based on Watershed Attributes, Southeastern United States, 2002) provides the following commentary in regards to SPARROW modeling in certain Florida river basins: "Nutrient conditions measured in streams affected by substantial influx or outflux of water and nutrient mass across surface-water basin divides do not reflect nutrient source and transport conditions in the topographic watershed; therefore, inclusion of such streams in the SPARROW modeling approach is considered inappropriate. River basins identified with this concern include south Florida (where surfacewater flow paths have been extensively altered) and the Oklawaha, Crystal, Lower Sante Fe, Lower Suwanee, St. Marks, and Chipola River basins in central and northern Florida (where flow exchange with the underlying regional aquifer may represent substantial nitrogen influx to and outflux from the surface-water basins)." Excluding these river basins would exclude the current analysis in four SPARROW watersheds: the St. Johns River,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3806Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Suwannee River, Apalachee Bay and the Apalachicola Bay watersheds (Figure 1). Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. Basins Excluded by USGS. See original comment letter. USGS's cmments were based on an analysis of runoff conditions in the named basins, maps of subcrop and outcrop of the Floridan aquifer, and the occurrence of karst and springs. Information for the analysis of runoff conditions was provided by Rumenik's 1988 "Runoff to Streams in Florida". Runoff is defined in this publication as, "that part of precipitation that appears in surface streams. It includes water from rainfall that flows directly into streams from the land surface and water that infiltrates to ground water systems and subsequently emerges in streams." Rumenik's document is a map that depicts mean annual runoff values as individual values on the map and as contour lines. In addition to mapping the mean annual runoff values, Rumenik provided commentary for several of the USGS excluded basins. Rumenik noted that, within the Oklawaha basin in central Florida, runoff estimates are among the lowest in the state at around five inches and that a portion of the low runoff rate is attributed to flow of some ground water out of the basin to the Withlacoochee and Suwannee river basins. Rumenik references highly variable springflow in the lower reaches of the Lower Santa Fe and Lower Suwannee basins, with groundwater flow being a major factor affecting runoff in the region. Rumenik also noted that northern portions of the St. Marks basin contain areas of high ground water recharge, while the southern portions contain areas of high discharge from the floridan aquifer system. Rumenik's comments also support exception of the Withlacoochee (03100208) because surface water recharge in the Oklawaha contributes ground water discharge to streams in the Withlacoochee. The common element of these comments is that they indicate cases where the sources and transport of nutrients in surface waters cannot be determined entirely by topographic means, and they also provide a basis upon which like-reasoning may be applied to other areas that should be excluded from the SPARROW application.

Additional Basins for exclusion based on FDEP Analysis of Internally drained basins and spring locations An FDEP comparison of the density of karst surface features in the USGS excluded river basins with the density of karst surface water features in other Florida river basins, as well as an accounting of rivers and streams in Florida for which groundwater contributes a significant contribution to flow suggests that a larger area than has been identified by the USGS may be considered inappropriate for SPARROW modeling. Additional river basins with high karst surface water features include the St. Andrew Bay, the Lower Choctawhatchee, Aucilla, Econfina - Steinhatchee, Upper Suwannee, Withlacoochee (03110203), Withlacoochee (03100208), Lower St. Johns, Upper St. Johns, and the Tampa Bay. Additional river basins that should be excluded from SPARROW modeling include St. Andrews Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay and the Tampa Bay. (Figure 2) Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 2. All Ground Water Excepted Basins. See original comment letter. Karst feature density, mapped as internally drained basins from topographic data sources, in some areas in Florida are comparable to karst feature densities in USGS's excluded basins (Figure 3). Internally drained basins are areas in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3807Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams which precipitation does not contribute to runoff to stream or river networks that flow entirely over the land surface. Internally drained basins recharge to the aquifer system in Karst areas or form evaporative-transpiration areas (lakes or ponds) in areas where there is an impermeable stratigraphic layer between the surface and the aquifer system. In many cases, the fate of recharge waters within karst areas in terms of its movement through the aquifer system and discharge is unknown. Ground water discharge at spring locations throughout all these basins contributes a significant portion of the surface water flow. St. Andrews Bay basin contains 12 known springs, seven of which are 2nd magnitude (between 10 and 100 cubic feet per second (cfs)) springs and one of which, Gainer Spring, is a 1st magnitude (greater than 100 cfs) spring. The Lower Choctawhatchee basin contains 24 spring locations, eight of them 2nd magnitude springs. The Aucilla includes 26 spring locations, one (Wacissa head spring) of which is a 1st magnitude and 15 of which are 2nd magnitude springs. The Econfina has 45 spring locations, 1 (Steinhatchee rise) of which is a 1st magnitude and 18 of which are 2nd magnitude. Withlachoochee (03110203) contains 16 total springs, including Blue Spring, which is a 1st magnitude and 11 others that are 2nd magnitude. The Upper St. Johns basin contains 60 known spring locations, including three 1st magnitude springs and 14 2nd magnitude springs. The Lower St. Johns basin contains 18 springs. The Withlacoochee (03100208) contains 51 springs, one (Rainbow) of which is a 1st magnitude and 14 of which are 2nd magnitude springs. The Tampa Bay basin has a relatively small land surface as it is composed primarily of the estuary but it contains 13 springs. Source: (Springs 2009 (.zip). 2009. FDEP, Tallahassee, Debra Harrington, http://www.dep.state . fl.us/gis/datadir.htm, February 23, 2010) from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 3. Internally Drained Basins in Florida from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. As previously mentioned, fate of recharge waters is largely unknown, but in some cases, groundwater basins or springshed boundaries (Figure 4) have been approximated by the Florida Geological Survey (FGS). Springshed delineations demarcate the land area upon which precipitation entering the groundwater system either through soil percolation or drainage to karstic internally drained basins accumulates in the aquifer, a portion of which is discharged in a known spring location. However, as noted in the examples in the following paragraphs, springsheds often do not follow watershed drainage areas modeled by SPARROW. The Crystal River Spring occurring in the Tampa Bay estuarine drainage area (EDA) has a springshed of approximately 200 square kilometers, of which only approximately half falls within the Withlacoochee River coastal drainage area (CDA). This supports the idea that the Tampa Bay EDA should be included in the areas excluded from the SPARROWS modeling because precipitation falling in the neighboring CDA is discharging to the Tampa Bay EDA. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 4. Selected Florida Springsheds from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. The Gainer grouping of Springs occurring in the St Andrews Basin has a springshed of approximately 390 square kilometers, of which approximately 20 square kilometers fall within the contingent Apalachicola Bay drainage area. There is some movement of groundwater sourced outside the St Andrews basin into the basin. The majority of spring locations in the Choctawhatchee Basin do not have defined springsheds upon which conclusions

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3808Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams about the movement of water through the groundwater system may be based. However, many other springsheds have been developed by the FGS and the springsheds support the conclusions drawn by the USGS that flow exchange with the regional aquifer poses difficulties in assessing nutrient sources and movement in the basin, and as a result, calculation of fractions of nitrogen delivered from individual surface water basins is not accurate. The Madison Blue spring occurring in the western Suwannee River fluvial drainage area (FDA) has a springshed of approximately 760 square kilometers. However, only 500 square kilometers fall within theSuwannee FDA (Figure 4), while 260 square kilometers of the Madison Blue springshed fall within the Apalachee Bay EDA. The St. Marks springs cluster, which is in the Apalachee Bay EDA, has a springshed area of approximately 2,200 square miles, of which 640 or so square miles fall outside the surface water EDA. The Santa Fe cluster of springs is a first magnitude grouping which has a springshed of approximately 3600 square miles. However, only 2200 square miles of the Santa Fe cluster springshed fall within the Suwannee River FDA, and over 1000 square miles falls within the St Johns River EDA, with the balance within the Wacasassa CDA. To accurately model these systems, the modeling approach would have to address the contribution of nutrient bearing waters that move through an aquifer watershed. Additional Basins for exclusion based on extensive surface water flow alterations. The surface water features in Florida's southern-most hydrologic units have been extensively altered. Here, topographically derived models of watershed areas poorly define surface water flow. In some South Florida areas, pumping stations actively transport water across topographic divides. Water is moved in between basin areas as a result of the needs to store and provide irrigation water during drier periods and at other times to remove excess rainfall from agricultural or urban areas. In other South Florida areas, surface water moves passively between basins through canal networks that cut across topographically defined divides as a result of localized differences in rainfall amounts and tides in near coastal areas. Water moves throughout South Florida as part of a managed system, and as a result water often moves in directions that are contradictory to topographically modeled predictions. For these reasons, USGS considers South Florida inappropriate for SPARROW modeling. However, there are other basins for which fractions of Total Nitrogen delivered to target have been calculated by the EPA that contain extensive canal networks and within which significant alterations to natural flows have been made. For example, large portions of the Indian River (S190x) (Figure 5), Daytona - St. Augustine (S183x) (Figure 6), Charlotte (G050W) (Figure 7), Tampa (G070x) (Figure 8), and the Withlacoochee (G076x) (Figure 9) drainage areas have extensive canal networks. Figures 5 through 9 depict high resolution National Hydrographic Dataset flow line features that fall within the respective SPARROW drainage areas. Figure 10 depicts the drainage basins that contain extensive canal networks at a statewide scale. The associated Figures 5a through 9a depict 1:500K Scale hydrologies that the drainage basin delineations were based upon. These paired graphics show the differences between coarse and fine scale hydrological modeling and show that the coarse 1:500K scale hydrological models do not capture significant components of the flow of nutrient laden surface waters across the topologically derived watershed boundaries. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 5. Canals in the Indian River (S190x) Drainage Area from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 5a. 1:500K Scale Hydrology, Indian Drainage Area from

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3809Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 6. Canals in the Daytona-St. Augustine Drainage Area from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 6a. 1:500K Scale Hydrology, Daytona St Augustine Drainage Area from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 7. Canals in the Charlotte Harbor (G050W) Drainage Area from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 7a. 1:500K Scale Hydrology, Charlotte Harbor Drainage Area from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 8. Canals in the Tampa Bay (G070x), Drainage Area from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 8a. 1:500K Scaled Hydrology, Tampa Bay Drainage Area from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 9. Canals in the Withlacoochee (G070x) Drainage Area from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 9a. 1:500K Hydrology, Withlacoochee Drainage Area from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 10. Surface Water Exceptions - Areas of Extensive Alterations from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Summary: The USGS commented that it would be inappropriate to run SPARROW nutrient model analyses within certain basins in Florida. This was based on the fact that it is difficult to account for nutrient inflows and outflows among drainage areas under which aquifer transport occurs and among drainage areas with extensively human-altered surface water hydrology. Recent springshed delineations created by the Florida Geological Survey have led to the understanding that the movement of nutrient bearing waters across topographic divides applies to a larger area than originally suggested by the USGS. Hydrographic models that have been created at scales larger than those used by SPARROW models reveal extensive canal networks within which nutrient bearing waters move across topographic divides. These areas exist in several drainage basins in addition to those suggested by the USGS. By extension of USGS's logic, using new and more accurate information, a large portion of the State of Florida should be exluded from SPARROW nutrient modeling (Figure 11) as it has been applied by the EPA to date. Original comment letter contains additional information Figure 11. All Florida Drainage Areas excepted from SPARROW Analysis from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3810Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Comment 3: The protective loads estimated using the application of SPARROW should not be promulgated The protective loads estimated using SPARROW should not be promulgated because of 1) the unacceptably high error contained in SPARROW loading estimates, and 2) the overly simplistic method used to derive protective loads. Using SPARROW estimated loads does not reflect realistic loading dynamics for many estuaries in Florida. Additionally, the method of using SPARROW to provide protective loads:

• Is not tied to ecological response to the estuaries,

• Assumes that all estuaries are not attaining the designated use due to nutrients, which is not accurate, and

• Relies on a background model run using atmospheric deposition only, which does not account for natural sources. EPA should wait until the estuary criteria are established so that realistic and accurate loading rates are used. Analysis: Error Contained in SPARROW Loading Estimates Overview: To analyze the error of the SPARROW loading estimates, the FDEP compared SPARROW estimated concentrations to current concentration conditions at the terminal reaches of watersheds leading to estuaries. Because the terminal reach concentrations were the driving factors for upstream concentrations (adjusted by the estimated fraction delivered) and the SPARROW model was used to estimate the protective concentration (converted from load) at the terminal reach, it is critical that the model accurately estimate the terminal reach loads. If the SPARROW model contained error, the source of that error was also evaluated, and FDEP found that the estimation error in SPARROW is correlated to color and the wetland coverage in the watershed. The higher the wetland coverage in the watershed, as indicated by higher color at the terminal reach, the higher SPARROW underestimates TN concentration at the terminal reach. The total nitrogen (specifically organic nitrogen) loading from wetlands appears to be a dominant source that is not accounted for in SPARROW. Introduction: To determine the stream DPVs, EPA needed an estimate of the allowable loading for downstream estuaries. For these estimates, EPA assumed that all Florida estuaries are impaired and set the allowable loading at the mid-point between the model estimated natural background nitrogen loading to the estuary and model estimated present nitrogen loads. To estimate natural background nitrogen loads, EPA used the SPARROW model which calculates nitrogen loads from the estuary's watershed due to various point and nonpoint nitrogen sources. As the first step to evaluate the DPVs, the FDEP assessed the accuracy of the Sparrow model in estimating nitrogen concentrations entering each of 16 Florida estuaries EPA estimated total nitrogen loads released into 16 Florida estuaries using the SPARROW model, which evaluated nitrogen coming from various land uses, point source pollution sources and atmospheric deposition within the estuary's watershed. However, the table provided by EPA (Table 2-9) contained incorrect entries and FDEP staff updated these estimates with corrected model results. FDEP then compared the update model estimates with actual collected data (1996-2008) from each of the 16 Florida estuary terminal reaches. FDEP found that EPA's estimates were generally

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3811Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams about 20% too low (averaging about 0.2 mg/L nitrogen too low). The errors in nitrogen estimates were correlated with color in the terminal reaches, with higher color resulting in larger errors. This error is due in part to the fact that SPARROW does not include inputs for TN loading from wetlands, and the SPARROW model should be corrected to fix this problem. Nitrogen is often naturally elevated in streams that have swampy/wetland drainage. This was shown in a Tetra Tech study (referenced in Appendix B-6 of EPA's TSD) that found organic nitrogen landuse highly correlated with forest densities. In a study of 778 stream waterbodies in Florida, FDEP found that higher color in streams is correlated with higher nitrogen concentrations. Elevated nitrogen from colored streams is probably a natural phenomenon. Assessment Methodology The first step in the process of verifying EPA's nitrogen estimates was to line up EPA's GIS map of terminal reaches with DEP's waterbody system, which uses waterbody identification (WBIDs) numbers to break streams into ~5 mile long reaches and lakes and estuaries into ~5 square mile sections. A map was created by overlaying EPA's watersheds on DEPs WBIDs for each of the 16 estuaries and suitable terminal reach WBIDs were selected. The selection process resulted in identifying 58 WBIDs that represent the 16 estuary terminal reaches. A few of the problems encountered in this procedure include:

• Some terminal WBIDs contained very saline water, indicating the estuary had already mixed in with the stream's water; therefore WBIDs located farther upstream were then sought; (WBIDs with conductivity greater than 1200 umhos/cm were rejected as too saline).

• Someof the EPA terminal reaches had insufficient nitrogen data available, so WBIDs just upstream were chosen.

• WBIDs with obvious major point sources were eliminated.

• DEP did not flow adjust the averages of its WBID concentrations like EPA did (if one stream entered an estuary with the vast majority of the estuaries inflow, than this stream should account for the vast majority of the terminal reaches concentration). Figure 12 shows the WBIDs chosen to represent the EPA terminal reaches (as green watersheds). Appendix 1 shows all the maps for Florida and a table of final 58 WBIDs covering the 16 estuaries. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 12. Terminal WBIDs in the Choctawhatchee Bay Watershed from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Once terminal WBIDs were selected through GIS map interpretation, average nitrogen concentrations were calculated for each estuary based on all the nitrogen data collected for each WBID in the estuary. The time frame for this data was 1996-2008, and there were generally about 200-1000 nitrogen measurements for each estuary (see results below).

EPA produced a table of estimated mean nitrogen concentrations for the terminal reaches as shown in Table 2-9 from

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3812Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams EPA's chapter 2. Documentation on how EPA calculated this number includes: "the annual average TN concentration in freshwaters entering each estuary was computed from SPARROW model output as the TN load to the estuary from the watershed stream reach network and the average annual flow in rivers within the same stream network "- page 11, EPA appendix 14-A). DEP used the Mean TN column in this table as the EPA estimated terminal stream reach concentrations; however the table had to first be corrected by FDEP staff). FDEP staff reviewed the total nitrogen concentrations presented in EPA's Table 2-9 and found some minor discrepancies in EPA's calculations. Apparently, EPA did not update the table with their final SPARROW model run, so FDEP staff verified the updated EPA's calculations with EPA and presented them in Table 1. That analysis is contained in Appendix G.

Original comment letter contains additional information in the Table 2-9 Average TN Loads to Florida Estuaries. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in the Table 1. Estimated EDA TN concentrations based on SPARROW. See original comment letter. TOTAL NITROGEN AT THE POUR POINT TO AN ESTUARY Nitrogen gradient in estuary and terminal reaches A nitrogen gradient map was also produced showing nitrogen concentrations from upstream of the terminal reach through the terminal reach and downstream through the estuary to the open gulf/Atlantic waters. The EPA Nitrogen estimate for the terminal stream reach was also presented on the graph. Figure 13 is an example of the calculations for the Choctawhatchee . (Maps for all 16 Florida estuaries are contained in Appendix E.) Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 13. Total Nitrogen concentrations (mg/L) In Choctawhatchee River and Bay WBIDs (for the 1996-2008 time period) from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Typical nitrogen values in Florida's streams, estuaries and Coastal waters Typically, Florida streams have nitrogen around 1 mg/L, while open Gulf or Atlantic waters have nitrogen ~0.3 mg/L (Figure 14). Estuaries are transitional nitrogen areas with high nitrogen concentrations in the upper estuary close to the stream inputs and low nitrogen lower in the bay near open Gulf/Ocean waters due to tidal dilution (data based on 1996­ 2008 WBID seasonal averages for 40 coastal, 80 estuaries and 1400 stream WBIDs)) Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 14. Typical Florida nitrogen values in Streams, estuaries and coastal waters from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. EPA NITROGEN ESTIMATE VS. DEP MEASURED NITROGEN AT POUR POINT Averages of measured nitrogen values were calculated for the 16 Florida estuaries terminal stream reaches and presented in the following table. The averages were based on the individual measurements for the terminal stream reach WBIDs for each estuary with about 200-1400 measurements available for each estuary. The measured steam nitrogen concentration was compared to the EPA's estimated stream nitrogen concentration and a percent error was determined (100*(measured nitrogen-estimated nitrogen)/measured nitrogen). A nitrogen error term was also calculated

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3813Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams that represents the measured nitrogen minus the estimated nitrogen. EPA underestimated the actual measured nitrogen concentration about 75% of the time with an average overall error of ~20% and 0.2 mg/L nitrogen. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. Comparison of EPA EDA TN estimates versus measured TN concentrations from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. COLOR/WETLAND COVERAGE - CAUSE FOR EPA'S UNDERESTIMATE OF POUR POINT NITROGEN FDEP evaluated available nitrogen and color data for state streams (data from 775 stream WBIDs for 1996-2008).and found a strong correlation between Total Nitrogen and color (Figure 15). Clear streams typically have low nitrogen concentrations and naturally tannic, high color streams exhibit much higher levels of nitrogen. This relationship between nitrogen and color is driven by the fact that, with the rare exception of a few watersheds with discharges from pulp and paper mills, stream color is determined by the amount of wetlands drainage in a watershed and wetlands typically discharge organic nitrogen. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 15. TN concentrations versus color for the 16 EDAs that EPA considered. See original comment letter. The FDEP then evaluated the magnitude of the difference in SPARROW estimates and measured values and found a strong relationship with color (see Figure 16, which shows the nitrogen error for each of the 15 Florida estuaries versus the color measured in the terminal streams). As color increases in the terminal streams, the EPA model estimate errors increase, indicating that the SPARROW model may need to include nitrogen estimates for natural nitrogen coming from swampy/wetland watershed areas. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 16. Nitrogen error versus color from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. To explore the possible causes of the correlation between model error and color, FDEP reviewed Appendix B-6 of the EPA technical support document, which presented an analysis of a potential multiple regression model to determine the relationship between nutrient concentrations and human land uses in the watershed. The following table from Appendix B-6 of EPA's technical support document shows the influence of wetlands/color on the organic fraction of nitrogen. Figure B8-4, which is also Original comment letter contains additional information in Table B8-1. Correlations between Nutrient Variables and Percent Land Use and LDI from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. from the appendix, show the percent coverage of wetlands in the Estuary Drainage Area compared to the percent error. The correlation coefficient between percent wetland area within a drainage area and total nitrogen and organic nitrogen were 0.329 and 0.439, respectively. However, there was also a relatively strong negative correlation coefficient between percent wetland and inorganic nitrogen (- 0.383). This indicates that wetlands are important sources of organic nitrogen to Florida streams and an important sink for inorganic nitrogen. It is important to note that the relationship between nitrogen and wetlands was much stronger than any other nitrogen source, likely because of their contribution of organic nitrogen. Of course, forested areas have a much greater influence on nitrogen concentrations, but in the opposite direction (a sink vs. a source). Wetlands represent a natural organic nitrogen source which should not be mitigated. The

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3814Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams following plots indicate similar relationships. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table B8-4. Nutrient Variables vs. 2004 drainage areas land cover. LOESS regression lines and their confidence intervals were also plotted from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. DEP then investigated the potential influences of natural wetland nitrogen sources on errors in the SPARROW estimated existing concentrations in the terminal reach. Model error was calculated as previously described, and percent total wetland and forested wetland area were calculated for each Estuary Drainage Area (EDA), including upstream areas in Georgia and Alabama. Florida landuse was based on 2004 landuse data from the Florida's water management districts. Alabama and Georgia landuse was tabulated using 2009 land cover/use GIS coverage from the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Nitrogen error, color, and percent wetland are summarized in Table 3.

Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between wetland area and percent wetland area. Nitrogen error had a moderately strong relationship to percent total wetland area and was stronger than with forest wetlands (Figures 17 and 18). St. Andrews Bay was highly influential on the strength of the relationship, and the relationships were much stronger when St. Andrews Bay was excluded from the analysis. Color within the terminal reach to St. Andrews Bay is relatively low (43 PCU) compared to the rest of the systems, which suggested that wetland influence in minimized for this estuary. In fact, the main tributary to St. Andrews Bay, Econfina Creek, is highly spring dominated. which dilutes the wetland influence. The strength of the relationships is highly suggestive that a large portion of the error in the SPARROW estimated existing loads to Florida estuaries can be explained by natural factors and sources of nutrients, such as wetlands. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3. Nitrogen error, percent wetland error, and color for terminal stream reaches to Florida estuaries. Errors were calculated as the EPA mean estimated concentration reach minus the measured average concentration in the terminal reach from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 17. Relationship between percent total wetland area and the error in EPA’s SPARROW estimated nitrogen concentrations in the terminal reaches to Florida estuaries from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 18. Relationship between percent forested wetland area and the error in EPA's SPARROW estimated nitrogen concentrations in the terminal reaches to Florida estuaries from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. INFLUENCE OF WETLANDS/NATURAL COLOR LEVELS ON ACHIEVMENT OF THE DOWNSTREAM PROTECTION VALUE (DPV) AT BENCHMARK SITES DEP has empirically observed that water discharged from natural wetlands contains significant color and organic nitrogen. If a nutrient loading model does not account for natural sources of nitrogen, large Type I errors are likely to occur. Therefore, DEP retrieved color, nitrogen and drainage basin landuse data for DEP's reference (benchmark) stream stations to investigate the effect of natural conditions on achievement of Downstream Protection Values (DPVs).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3815Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Note that the benchmark sites used for this analysis were thoroughly vetted by DEP to assure minimal human disturbance, and that EPA's peer reviewers commented on the scientific rigor of DEP's reference site selection approach. Responses by the peer reviewers can best be summarized by the following reviewer's statement: "I am extremely impressed by the way DEP has gone about choosing reference sites for nutrient criteria. I can think of nothing that would improve upon their selection process." Geometric means for organic nitrogen and color were calculated for each reference site (n=89). Additionally, the proportion of the drainage area covered by wetlands was tabulated, based on 2004 landuse GIS coverages. Organic nitrogen was highly correlated with both percent wetland (spearman r=0.513) and color (spearman r=0.749; Figure 19). These results validate DEP's previous experience concerning the influence of natural processes and sources on nitrogen. Natural vegetation, which contributes large quantities of leaf litter and which is subsequently decomposed in wetlands, ultimately provides the source of both the color (humic acid substances) and organic nitrogen. The only anthropogenic sources of color in Florida waters are pulp and paper mills. As these are permitted discharges, DEP is fully aware that there are only four pulp mills discharging to Florida's freshwater streams. Furthermore, none of DEP's reference sites were downstream of pulp and paper discharges. Therefore, the strong relationship between color and organic nitrogen is truly indicative of natural nitrogen sources.

The influence of these natural processes on the attainment of the DPVs was investigated using both ordinary least squares regression and logistic regression. The difference between measured geometric mean organic nitrogen and the applicable DPV was calculated for each reference site. Organic nitrogen at sites with differences less than zero would attain the DPV, while those greater than zero would exceed the DPV. The relationship between these "difference values" and color is shown in Figure 20. Additionally, logistic regression was used to calculate the probability of organic nitrogen exceeding the DPV based on the influence of color alone (Table 1; Figure 20). The probability of exceeding the DPV increases dramatically as color increases. A second logistic regression model was constructed using both color and percent wetland area as independent variables to predict organic nitrogen exceedance of the DPV (Figure 21). It should be noted that there is a moderate correlation between color and wetland area (r=0.413), reflecting the fact that wetlands can act as a natural source of color, thus color and proportion wetlands area are not completely independent variables. However, the logistic regression model including both color and proportion wetland area provided a better fit than did models with either variable alone. Furthermore, the addition of an interaction dramatically did not improve the fit or alter the relationship (Table 3) and is more difficult to visualize. Therefore, only the model based on color and wetland area is discussed further. The models illustrate the fact that as portion wetland area and/or color increase, the probability of exceeding the DPV also increases. The strength of these regression models is quite remarkable considering the fact that they do not take into account the influence of the SPARROW calculated fraction delivered on the DPVs. Fraction delivered is essentially a function of travel time and distance from the terminal node and is independent of both color and wetland area, while the DPV is a function of an arbitrarily selected protective load to an estuary and fraction delivered. Wetlands will attenuate flow and lengthen travel time. However, the SPARROW model did not include wetland area as a variable. Additionally, the fraction delivered did not correlate with wetland area (r=0.082), and the relationship between wetlands and DPV exceedance is inverse to that which would be expected if the primary influence of wetlands on the DPV was to attenuate flow.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3816Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

The relationships between organic nitrogen and color and wetlands area represent natural processes. The degree to which large positive differences between measured organic nitrogen and the DPV or high exceedance probabilities (>25%) relate to natural conditions such as color or wetlands provides a clear indication that EPA's DPVs are gross underestimates of natural nitrogen level in Florida's streams. Furthermore, scientific logic dictates that these organic nitrogen levels are inherently protective of downstream waters because they reflect natural conditions that would occur in the absence of anthropogenic activities. These models clearly demonstrate that EPA's currently proposed DPVs have not taken into account natural sources of nitrogen and will result in:

• misguided efforts to remediate natural land uses, and/or

• a significant allocation of state and private resources to develop site specific criteria that better reflect natural conditions. DEP believes serious consideration needs to be given to criteria for inorganic nitrogen (which is largely the result of anthropogenic activities) only because a large portion of the organic fraction in Florida streams is derived from natural sources. Alternatively, total nitrogen criteria should be adjusted to account for the influence of color and/or wetlands. Table 1. Logistic regression models of probability of organic nitrogen in Florida reference streams exceeding DPV impairment as a function of color. McFadden's rho-squared (SYSTAT Software, Inc., 2004) is conceptually similar to the r-squared of linear regression. McFadden's rho-squared approaching 1.0 corresponds with more significant results. McFadden's rho-squared tends to be smaller than r-squared, so a small number does not necessarily imply a poor fit. Values between 0.20 and 0.40 indicate good results (SYSTAT Software, Inc., 2004). Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 1. Logistic regression models of probability of organic nitrogen in Florida reference streams exceeding DPV impairment as a function of color. McFadden’s rho-squared (SYSTAT Software, Inc., 2004) is conceptually similar to the r-squared of linear regression. McFadden’s rho-squared approaching 1.0 corresponds with more significant results. McFadden’s rho-squared tends to be smaller than r-squared, so a small number does not necessarily imply a poor fit. Values between 0.20 and 0.40 indicate good results (SYSTAT Software, Inc., 2004). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 2. Logistic regression models of probability of organic nitrogen in Florida reference streams exceeding DPV impairment as a function of color and proportion drainage area as wetland. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3. Logistic regression models of probability of organic nitrogen in Florida reference streams exceeding DPV impairment as a function of color, proportion drainage area as wetland, and interaction term between color and wetland area. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 19. Relationship between color and organic nitrogen concentration in Florida's reference (benchmark) streams. Note that color accounts for almost 50% of the variability in organic nitrogen. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 20. Relationship between color and the difference between measured reference stream organic nitrogen and the DPV and the probability of exceeding the DPV.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3817Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Difference values greater than 0.0 represent reference sites with organic nitrogen in excess of the DPV; that is, sites that would exceed the criterion. The exceedance probability was calculated using the logistic regression presented in Table 1. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 21. Relationship between the probability of organic nitrogen in Florida reference streams exceeding the DPVs and color and proportion wetland in the drainage basis. Isobars indication the probability of exceeding the appropriate DPV for a given combination of color and proportion wetland. Probabilities were calculated based on the logistic regression presented in Table 3. The data points (black circles) are the measured color and proportion drainage areas as wetland values. See original comment letter. Review of Proposed Protective Loads The technical limitations of the SPARROW model described previously alone cause concerns about the scientific validity of the methodology used to calculate the presumed allowable loading for Florida's estuaries. As articulated previously, a variety of model limitations lead to errors in estimating both the current loads and the loads with anthropogenic sources of nitrogen removed (other than atmospheric deposition). However, even if the limitations of the model were addressed by EPA and/or USGS, the methodology used would still not be scientifically valid because it a) presumes that all Florida estuaries are impaired for nutrients, when in fact many meet their designated uses related to nutrients, and b) it arbitrarily selects the mid-point between current loads and an estimate of natural background loads, rather than selecting a loading that is related to impairment. We strongly recommend that, as indicated in the proposal, EPA not include the DPVs for the protection of estuaries in this year's rulemaking, and instead defer the issue until scientifically supportable estimates of the allowable loading are calculated as part of the estuarine criteria development process. Comment 4: The fraction delivered calculated by SPARROW is significantly overestimated in most areas of Florida. The flow paths contained in the reach file used by SPARROW in combination with the flow velocities underestimate the actual decay of nitrogen as it moves through Florida waters. Analysis: The Resolution of the Stream Network used by SPARROW grossly Oversimplifies Hydrology therefore grossly Underestimating Denitrification Maps presented on the following pages depict the differences between the 1:500K Stream and River segments that were used by the SPARROW model to delineate watersheds, the 1:100K NHD plus reaches that may be used by the SPARROW model in the future, and the 1:24K NHD reaches that represents the best depiction of actual stream hydrology. The relationship between hydrology and water chemistry is very strong. The effects of hydrologic dynamics related to residence time, depth, velocity, substrate, and surface/ground water interactions have a critical effect on water chemistry. In particular, denitrification is significantly affected by hydrologic conditions. This is specifically problematic because the proposed downstream protection values apply at any point in the WBID area. The proposal as worded extends the downstream protection value throughout a waterbody area known as the WBID. Any particular WBID contains vast differences in hydrology throughout the waterbody as shown in the 1:24K NHD

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3818Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams coverage, whereas the criteria expression expects the same nitrogen concentration throughout the WBID. However, the proposed downstream protection formula recognizes that the Fi variable targets the "fraction of the flux at the downstream node of the specific (ith) reach that is transported through the stream network and ultimately delivered to estuarine receiving waters (i.e., Fraction Delivered)." The stream network that contains the transport function is also grossly oversimplified by the 1:500 NHD scale network. All these simplifications overestimate the fraction delivered to the estuary by excluding lake dynamics, wetland dynamics, and groundwater dynamics. Bear Bay Creek is a good example of how much of the resource is not captured at the 500K scale and shows the inaccurate hydrology when compared to the higher resolution at the 100K and 24K scales. As shown in the higher resolution, there are many watercourses, streams and rivers that broaden and move through lakes and extensive wetlands, and these features have significant effects on velocity and water chemistry, particularly related to nutrient conditions. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 45 of the pdf titled 1 Bear Bay Creek Hydrology used in SPARROW from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 46 of the pdf titled 2 Bear Bay Creek at a possible Scale to be used by SPARROW in the Future from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 46 of the pdf titled 3 Bear Bay Creek Hydrology at its Highest Derived Resolution from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Burnt Mill Creek provides an additional example of gross hydrology and depicts how broadly defined watersheds inaccurately model water flow. Burnt Mill Creek is the only stream shown in the 500K scale, when in fact there are numerous streams that flow across the watershed divide in the western and northern portion of the Burnt Mill Creek watershed in the 1:24K graphic and a Lake that straddles the divide in the northern most portion of the watershed. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 47 of the pdf titled Burnt Mill Creek Watershed from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 48 of the pdf titled 1:100K NHD Plus Watersheds for Burnt Mill Creek Watershed from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 48 of the pdf titled 1:24K NHD Plus Flowlines for Burnt Mill Creek Watershed from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. The Haw Creek example depicts the above mentioned problems and also shows how large lakes and canal systems may not follow , which was a criterion that USGS and EPA used to exclude most of southern Florida from SPARROW modeling. Also notice the inaccurate depiction of hydrology related to the absence of Lake George and Crescent Lake. Note that the watershed drains in two distinct directions and is also inclusive of many lakes, wetlands, and pools.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3819Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 49 of the pdf titled 1:500K Hydrology for Haw Creek Watershed from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 50 of the pdf titled 1:100K NHD Plus Watersheds for Haw Creek Watershed from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 51 of the pdf titled 1:24K NHD Plus Flowlines for Haw Creek Watershed from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. See original comment letter. Stream Velocities Significantly Effect Fraction of Nitrogen Delivered The stream velocities used by SPARROW are grossly overstated, and the reach network does not include the effects of lakes and wetland areas, both of which result in very fast travel times that do not depict the actual time and opportunity for denitrification as water moves towards the estuary. The following analysis shows the difference in measured stream velocities and SPARROW stream velocities. Mean Velocity Comparisons in the SAGT-SPARROW Model with measured velocities BACKGROUND The hydrologic network used in the SAGT SPARROW model was based on the EPA 1:500,000 scale Reach File 1 (RF1) that was subsequently enhanced by Nolan etal., 2002 (ERF 2). References were cited that described the enhanced RF1 to support national and regional scale water quality models. The following was extracted from U.S. EPA Reach File 1 (RF1) for the Conterminous United States in BASINS:

• The RF1 stream flow data consist of mean annual flow and 7Q10 low flow estimates made at the downstream ends of more than 60,000 transport reaches coupled to an estimate of the time-of travel velocity for the full length of those same reaches under each of those two flow regimes. EPA needed to estimate flows for more than 60,000 reaches because it needed flow data on all RF1 reaches and the USGS had consistent stream flow data on fewer than 2000 of them. Even on these few reaches where consistent data were available, the data were needed at the downstream ends of the reaches rather than where the USGS gages were typically located. Thus, in fact, all of the RF1 flow data are estimates at locations other than USGS gage sites. An additional limitation in the gage network was that vast areas of the country were without USGS data for drainage areas under 500 square miles, except for gages with data gaps, data skew, and anomalous conditions. Approximately 2,000 gages in this category were included in the data set used, such that 4112 gages with flow data were actually used in producing the estimates for all RF1 reaches. Another group of gages was used in the flow estimation process. Drainage area, an attribute essential to the flow estimation process used, is usually available from all USGS flow gages. All of the 4112 gages that included useful flow records, and approximately 4000 additional gages that did not have useful flow data for the project, were used to assign drainage area to reaches in RF1. The drainage area attribute available for gages was thereby used on approximately 8000 gages. By snapping gages to reaches, the project was able to acquire drainage area for approximately one reach in every eight reaches in RF1. Thus some gages were used for stream flow data and their drainage area measurement, and the remaining were used for

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3820Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams only their drainage area measurement.

• Enhanced River Reach File 2 serves as the foundation for SPARROW (Spatially Referenced Regressions (of nutrient transport) on Watershed) modeling. Within the context of a Geographic Information System, SPARROW estimates the proportion of watersheds in the conterminous U.S. with outflow concentrations of several nutrients, including total nitrogen and total phosphorus, (Smith, R.A., Schwarz, G.E., and Alexander, R.B., 1997). This version of the network expands on ERF1 (Version 1.2; Alexander, et al., 1999) and includes the incremental and total drainage area derived from 1-kilometer (km) elevation data for North America. Previous estimates of the water time-of-travel were recomputed for reaches with water-quality monitoring sites that included two reaches. The mean flow and velocity estimates for these split reaches are based on previous estimation methods (Alexander et al., 1999) and are unchanged in ERF1_2. Drainage area calculations provide data used to estimate the contribution of a given nutrient to the outflow. Data estimates depend on the accuracy of node connectivity. According to Section III from a 1982 Reach File Enhancements report in 1982 provided by Anne Hoos of the USGS, stream velocities in the RF1 file were predicted based on a parabolic function of the form: Original comment letter contains additional information as an equation of stream velocities in the RF1 file. See original comment letter. A total of 2,229 time of travel /velocity measurements (primarily conducted prior to 1973) across the country were partitioned based on USGS State Hydrologic maps on stream order and the parabolic function was fit to each dataset by stream order. The R2 values for stream orders 1 - 6 ranged between 0.223 and 0.524. Expressions for stream orders 7 - 9 were fit was based on visual inspection due to small sample sizes. Appendix B, which included a bibliography of time of travel study data, was not included so it is unknown at this time how many studies that included Florida streams were included in the analysis. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARISON VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS WITH ERF2 AND NHD-PLUS VALUES The following table contains example comparisons between the mean velocity in the SPARROW model, the estimate of mean velocity from the cross-walked NHD-Plus reach, and the mean from daily mean velocities calculated from gage measurements. These discrepancies in velocities seriously affect travel time and nitrogen delivery to downstream waterbodies. The detailed information is contained in Appendix F of this document. Original comment letter contains additional information in the table on page 54 of the pdf of example table of comparisons between the mean velocity in the SPARROW model, the estimate of mean velocity from the cross-walked NHD-Plus reach, and the mean from daily mean velocities calculated from gage measurements. See original comment letter. COMPARISON OF STREAM VELOCITIES AMONG STATES INCLUDED IN THE SAGT-SPARROW MODEL Mean stream velocities in the ERF2 from other states in the SAGT-SPARROW model domain were obtained and summarized graphically and statistically. Interestingly, based on the statistical summary, Florida had the highest 25th percentile and median stream velocity among the seven states that were compared. Given Florida's overall flat terrain compared to other southeastern States, this does not seem logical and should be evaluated by EPA and USGS.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3821Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Original comment letter contains additional information in the graph on page 55 titled Cumulative Frequency Mean Velocity. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in the graph on page 56 titled Distribution of stream mean velocities in the SAGT-SPARROW Model. See original comment letter. In the case of the 1:100,000 NHDPlus attributes associated with a mean velocity estimate, reference is made to Jobson (1996). Jobson used tracer time of travel studies conducted on over 980 subreaches for about 90 different rivers in the county to predict the peak velocity as a function of drainage area, discharge, and reach slope. Original comment letter contains additional information as an equation to predict the peak velocity as a function of drainage area, discharge, and reach slope. See original comment letter. FDEP evaluated the land surface slope in SPARROW to determine if that was the reason for the errors in stream velocities. Land surface slope (as percent) was obtained from the SAGT-SPARROW model for stream reaches and is summarized graphically and statistically. Among the seven states, mean slopes in Florida were lower than the other states throughout the distribution range. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 57 of the pdf titled Cumulative Frequency Mean Slope. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 58 of the pdf titled Distribution of mean slopes in the SAGT-SPARROW Model. See original comment letter. The SAGT-SPARROW model also included a field labeled p-flat that represented the fraction of catchment area with slope less than 1 percent. Comparisons among the seven states are presented graphically and as a statistical summary. Florida tended to have a larger fraction of catchment areas with slopes less than 1 percent, which would be expected. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 59 of the pdf titled Cumulative Frequency P_Flat. See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure on page 59 and 60 of the pdf titled Distribution of p_flat in the SAGT-SPARROW Model. See original comment letter. Given that the distribution of land surface slopes and fraction of catchment area with slopes less than 1 percent in Florida appeared to be considerably different from the other states in the model domain, it is surprising that mean stream velocities up to the 50th percentile were higher in Florida than the other six states. Perhaps other physical factors or precipitation differences could explain some of this. Comparisons of velocities recorded at gages or estimatedbased on field measurements however suggest that mean stream velocities in ERF2 and NHD Plus consistently overestimate mean velocities. INFLUENCE OF STREAM VELOCITIES ON NITROGEN DELIVERY TO THE TERMINAL REACH

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3822Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

The SPARROW estimated fraction of nitrogen delivered from the headwaters of the St. Johns River to the estuary is 75 percent. This is due to the estimate in SPARROW that such water reaches the estuary in 5.62 days. That estimate is in error due to the model's extreme overestimation of the velocity of the St. Johns River and lack of recognized lake systems. Putting aside lake systems (which should never be done in fate and transport modeling) and plugging in actual velocities, the travel time increases to between 32 and 64 days, with a fraction delivered between 21 and 4 percent respectively. Analysis Mainstem watersheds of the St. Johns River from the headwater to the terminal reach were identified, and key attributes from the SAGT- SPARROW model output were compiled. Some of these attributes included: Rchtot - Reach water time of travel (computed as quotient of reach length and reach mean annual stream velocity); used to estimate first-order contaminant decay. MeanQ - Mean annual streamflow; value of -9999.00 indicates no flow (shoreline and a few interior reaches). FracDelTar - Fraction (of 1.0) of the flux at the downstream node of this reach that is transported through the stream network and ultimately delivered to the basin outlet (the coast or, for reaches in the Tennessee River Basin, the confluence with the Ohio River) Original comment letter contains additional information in the Table describing the above Reach, Streamflow, and Fraction on page 61 of the pdf. See original comment letter. Once nitrogen is delivered to the stream, SPARROW includes a nitrogen removal factor that is represented by an exponential function of the form: e(-k*days instream travel). The value of k is based on stream flow, k= 0.14/day for streams with meanQ < 1000 cfs and k= 0.014/day for streams with meanQ>= 1000 cfs. In the case of the St. Johns, if a load XX enters the stream in the headwater watershed (66451) the predicted load that reaches the terminal reach (7456) would be: Load at terminal reach = XX*(e.-0.14*1.7053)*(e-0.014*3.9173) = XX*0.788*0.947= 0.746*XX In the SAGT-SPARROW model, the total distance along the mainsteam was 338,383.38 m (210.3 miles) with a total travel time of 5.62 days. There are a number of stream gages located along the mainstem segment of the St. Johns River. Average velocities were calculated at eight of the gages as shown in the table. Average velocities ranged between 0.15 and 0.59 ft/s. The fraction of load XX entering the St. Johns at the headwater delivered to the terminal reach was evaluated assuming a velocity of 0.4 ft/s and 0.2 ft/s. If the stream velocity was actually 0.4 ft/s., the total travel time would increase to 32.12 days and the fraction of load entering the estuary would decrease to 21%. Load at terminal reach = XX*(e.-0.14*8.736)*(e-0.014*23.389) = XX*0.2943*0.7208= 0.212*XX Similarly, if the stream velocities was 0.2 ft/s, the total travel time would increase to 64.25 days and the fraction of load

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3823Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams entering the estuary would decrease to 4% Load at terminal reach = XX*(e.-0.14*17.472)*(e-0.014*49.778) = XX*0.0866*0.4981= 0.043*XX In summary, SAGT-SPARROW estimates the travel time of the St. Johns River (210.3 miles) to be 5.62 days while actual travel times (excluding any accounting of lakes) are upwards of 64 days. This translates to a SAGT-SPARROW estimated fraction delivered of 75% versus a calculated fraction delivered (using measured velocities and not accounting for lakes) of between 4 and 21% from the headwaters to the terminal reach. If lakes were factored into thecalculations, the fraction delivered would be reduced even more. A partial explanation for why SPARROW overestimated the fraction remaining is that all of the reaches of the St. Johns River were identified as streams in the ERF2 1:500,000 scale, when in fact there are seven named lakes in the St. Johns River system. If reaches were identified in the ERF2 coverage as a lake or reservoir, the SAGT-SPARROW model would have used a settling term to remove nitrogen (inverse of areal hydraulic loading: 10.7 yr/m).

Original comment letter contains additional information in the table of The seven overlooked lakes in the St. Johns River on page 62 of the pdf. See original comment letter. Application of the HSPF Model to a Portion of the St. Johns River Recently, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nutrients was completed for an 11 mile portion of the St. Johns River between the outlet of Lake Harney and the outlet of Lake Jesup (segment 11 in the figure below). The model Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF) was used to simulate conditions over the 1996 - 2003 period. Based on the model, the long-term (based on results for the 1996 - 2003 period) average flow velocity for the segment was about 0.11 ft/s, and the long-term water residence time for the same period is about 5.3 days over the 11 mile stretch. The long-term average attenuation rate for TN for the segment is about 0.9%. Note that this attenuation calculation reflects the difference


# Comment ID 1675-1.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection between the total input of total nitrogen into the segment and the total nitrogen leaving the segment, not just attenuation of the load entering from the upstream boundary. In the SAGT-SPARROW model, the watershed 7405 includes the portion from the outlet of Lake Harney through Lake Monroe as well as Lake Jesup. For this much larger watershed (7405), the SAGT-SPARROW had a travel time of 0.75 days based on a mean stream velocity of 2.26 ft/s. In comparison, an estimated mean velocity calculated from a regression between field measurements of flow and channel velocity taken at the gage located near Sanford (02234500) yielded a mean velocity at the mean Q for the gage of 0.41 ft/s and a travel time of 3.61 days. Assuming an in-stream nitrogen loss rate of 0.014 per day, an instream load of XX from the outlet of Lake Harney would be 0.951XX at the end of watershed 7405 with a travel time of 3.61 days versus 0.985XXv based upon the SAGT-SPARROW model travel time of 0.75 days. While this difference may seem small for this portion of the river, it projects to a very significant difference over the length of the river.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3824Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Original comment letter contains additional information in the map on page 1 of the pdf from Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. Impact to model predictions of monitored loads A consequence of reducing reach velocities is an increase in the in-stream removal of nitrogen as nitrogen is transported downstream to the terminal reach. This would suggest that without increased nitrogen loads delivered to the stream from individual watersheds, there would be an increased difference between the monitored loads at specific locations and model predicted loads based on the current model coefficients. The model considers loading contributions from wet atmospheric deposition of inorganic nitrogen, nitrogen mass in commercial fertilizer applied to agricultural land, nitrogen mass in manure from livestock production, and nitrogen mass in permitted wastewater discharges. Area of impervious surfaces was also included as a source input variable. Several physical landscape variables are used in the model to estimate the attenuation of total nitrogen on the landscape. An exponential function that includes physical landscape variables such as soil permeability, depth to bedrock, and mean annual precipitation is applied to the catchment load. As described in Hoos and McMahon (2009), the delivery variation factor (DVR) defines the variation among catchments in nitrogen landscape attenuation processes and ultimately the landscape delivery ratio (LDR). The LDR is the ratio of mass delivered to the stream channel to the measured input to catchment. The DVR allows for variations among catchments in the LDR. A DVR greater than 1 indicates a larger fraction of nitrogen reaches the stream than the model median, while a value less than 1 indicates a smaller fraction of nitrogen from the catchment reaches the stream. The following table summarizes the delivery factors for the St. Johns River segments. DVRs range between 0.76 and 1.08 with an average value of 0.93. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers on page 2 of the pdf in the table that summarizes the delivery factors for the St. Johns River segments in the Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. If the source loads to the catchment are set inputs to the model, it would seem that the land delivery fraction from these sources would have to be increased to offset the increased loss of nitrogen from instream removal processes. There should be an upper bound on the DVR above which there would be some concern regarding the accuracy of specific source loads to a catchment. Another possibility is that the model does not adequately represent other sources of nitrogen to stream reaches. For example, nitrogen fixation has been shown to be a significant source of nitrogen in a number of Florida lake systems (for example, Lake Jessup and Lake George). As discussed previously, another likely source of nitrogen is detrital material or colored dissolved organic matter (CDOM) that enters streams from wetlands and stream riparian areas. LACK OF CATCHMENTS AND STREAM CHARACTERISTICS EFFECTS NITROGEN DELIVERY The hydrologic network used in the SAGT-SPARROW model was based upon the EPA 1:500,000 scale enhanced reach file 2 (ERF2). Within Florida, ERF2 has only 17 catchments identified as reservoirs (reach type 1 and 11 catchments identified as reservoir reach outlets (reach type 2). The following table summarizes the reservoir catchments. Reservoir catchments in Florida are illustrated in the figure. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers on page 3 of the pdf in the table that

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3825Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams summarizes the reservoir catchments in the Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. In contrast, there are actually over 100 lakes and/or reservoirs in the state that have a surface area of over 1,000 acres. Most of these lakes are identified as stream reaches in the ERF2 network. This misidentification is very significant because, in the SAGT-SPARROW model, different nitrogen attenuation coefficients are used for streams and reservoirs. The attenuation of nitrogen in reservoirs is related to the hydraulic load, while attenuation rates in streams are specified based on a mean flow greater than or less than 1000 cfs. The following table and figures provide a few examples of lakes that are classified as stream reaches in ERF2 and differences in in-stream attenuation based on the model assumed travel times. Surface areas of these lakes were based on Department GIS coverage of lakes. Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in the table and 4 figures (few examples of lakes that are classified as stream reaches in ERF2 and differences in in-stream attenuation based on the model assumed travel time) on pages 4-8 of the pdf Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. The concern over how nitrogen attenuation may have been calculated for numerous lakes in the SAGTSPARROW model based on the ERF2 reach classification also influences the fracdeltac calculated for catchments. In addition, nitrogen fixation by cyanobacteria can represent a significant source of nitrogen in lakes, reservoirs, and large slow moving rivers. Lake Griffin also illustrates another potential issue that may not have been adequately captured in the ERF2 reach network. As shown in the figure, there is a lock and dam structure located on the stream reach (Haines Creek). There is also the Moss Bluff Dam and Spillway located approximately 10 miles downstream from the outlet of Lake Griffin. Note that the dam is located approximately in the middle of the catchment (65065). Within the SAGT-SPARROW domain of Florida, the National Inventory of Dams (NID) lists over 800 dams, spillways, control structures etc. Many of these are not directly along stream reaches, but it is unclear how potential influences of these structures on land delivery of nitrogen or in-stream attenuation are addressed in the SPARROW model. There appear to be some instances in which monitored loads were calculated upstream of structures and downstream loads were not adjusted based on operational controls of structures. In the calculation of loads delivered to estuaries, loads predicted at the terminal reach(es) to individual estuaries were summed. There appear to be a number of cases in which catchments may have been incorrectly assigned a termflag value in the model predictions output spreadsheet. In the case of the Suwannee River estuary, the output file had four catchments identified with termflag=1 (7758, 66191, 66192, 7623). Based on the GIS coverage, it appears that catchment 66191 flows to catchment 66192, which flows into catchment 7758. Another example of multiple terminal reaches that would lead to model error is in the case of the St. Andrews Bay. In the model predictions output spreadsheet, nine catchments were identified as terminal reaches (terminal flag=1) and ten catchments were identified as shoreline reaches (terminal flag=3). The following figure illustrates catchments in a portion of St. Andrews Bay surrounding Deerpoint Lake (a drinking water supply reservoir for Panama City). Catchments 8170 (Bear Creek) and 8173 (Econfina Creek) are labeled as terminal reaches but appear to drain to Deerpoint Lake above the Deerpoint Dam, which controls freshwater discharges into St. Andrews Bay. Similarly, catchment 81171 is identified as a shoreline reach, but appears to drain to Deerpoint Lake above the dam.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3826Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Original comment letter contains additional information for streams and rivers in the figure on page 10 of the pdf titled Figure - Deerpoint Lake and St. Andrews Bay in Florida DEP proposed nutrient criteria comment report. See original comment letter. Comment 5: The expression of the criteria does not fit the formula. The formula is focused on the downstream node of the stream network (see Fi) used by SPARROW, while the expression targets water quality throughout the stream (upstream of the node). Given the resolution of the hydrography used by SPARROW, waters contained in an area upstream of the node (including ground water delivered) exhibit many more variables that would affect nutrient delivery to the node. If EPA decides that this provision is necessary in the final promulgated rule, FDEP recommends that the criteria application match the formula used to derive the criteria such that a downstream node is the spatial location for determining attainment. However, there are significant site specific factors and technical difficulties in projecting necessary nitrogen concentrations upstream from the estuary into a watershed. The farther you move from the estuary, the greater the error. For all the reasons articulated previously, denitrification in weltands, streams, and lakes as they flow towards estuaries is not done well in SPARROW. All of the factors necessary to accurately estimate denitrification add up to conclude that nitrogen fate and transport is a very site specific analysis and cannot be accurately captured or assumed when applying criteria to streams. An alternative approach would be to apply downstream protection values at the pour point of watershed as they enter the estuaries. Such an approach would involve setting a criterion at the point where the watershed discharges into another waterbody (like the estuary). That value would also provide a numeric threshold used to assess attainment and generate water quality based effluent limits for upstream NPDES discharges ensuring nutrients coming from a watershed are at levels protective of the estuary. In this circumstance, given the extensive network of wetlands and intervening lakes along waterways in Florida, we would recommend applying a pour point concept at the point where the stream enters the lake. Of course that should only be adopted if the pour point numbers are technically defensible. Comment 6: The proposed criteria for the protection of downstream estuaries do not include a duration and frequency component to the criteria. For implementation, it is critical to identify the averaging period for the numeric value and the number of times it can be exceeded and still be protective. The duration and frequency for the downstream protection values derived using the formula should be the same duration and frequency for the total nitrogen target value (Lest) used in the formula. 

# Comment ID 1680-2.001.001

Author Name: Brooks J. Organization: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Enclosed are materials related to the development and adoption of total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for four significant coastal waters in Florida. The coastal waters include the Indian River Lagoon, the lower St. Johns River, Tampa Bay and the Caloosahatchee. The TMDLs for these waters have been formally adopted pursuant to Florida law and have been subsequently approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We request you utilize the documentation generated through the TMDL process and include the TMDL nutrient loading limits for these coastal

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3827Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams waters as site specific criteria in your January rule language. These site specific criteria would be used in lieu of applying the interim targets generated using the Sparrow Model. Your consideration of these materials is appreciated. I recognize the time constraints facing EPA and would encourage you to utilize staff in Region IV who is very familiar with the scientific foundation of these TMDLs. 

# Comment ID 1695-1.001.008

Author Name: Wiley N. Organization: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Downstream Protection of Estuaries: It is our understanding that EPA has decided to delay finalizing promulgation of rules concerning the downstream protection of estuaries during the 2011 rulemaking. Therefore, we will wait to comment on this issue until that time. 

# Comment ID 1700-1.001.003

Author Name: Mahan R. Organization: MB Management 67, Inc. I have spoken with several scientists knowledgeable about Florida's waters and the numeric standards proposed by the EPA. I am very concerned, as I have been told the following:
1. The EPA used the US Geological Survey's "Sparrow" model, which the US Geological Survey indicates should not be used on water bodies impacted by groundwater and was designed as a broad-brush, generalized analytical tool not meant for calculating specific numerical nutrient levels. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.067

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Estuaries Sparrow Model There are large numbers of streams, lakes and canals in Florida but only 26 or so downstream estuaries. It could be argued that prescriptive approaches for streams, lakes and canals would be less costly and more effective than application of narrative criteria on a site-specific basis. However, the proposed approach for using SPARROW to derive DPVs for protection of downstream estuaries does not appear to provide substantial advantages compared to site-specific methods. One reason is that SPARROW is not even applicable to seven estuaries in south Florida (including the Caloosahatchee, St. Lucie, Biscayne Bay and Florida Bay) because the inflows to these systems are so highly managed. Another reason is that USEPA intends to propose numeric nutrient concentration criteria for estuaries in Florida in 2011, thus precluding the need to use SPARROW in the first place to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3828Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams estimate protective nutrient loads. Consequently, it could be argued that protection of downstream estuaries should be conducted on a site-specific basis as part of upstream TMDLs. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.068

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Why Do We Need Both a Load and a Concentration? The procedure employed to develop DPV's is extremely difficult to understand, filled with assumptions and in the case of estuaries involves converting a protective TN load to a concentration. If there is already a protective load established for an estuary why is there a need to establish a numeric N concentration? 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.069

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District What is Being Impaired? The proposed nutrient criteria for streams, lakes and canals are based on consideration of ambient water quality parameters (response parameters) that EPA purports are related to causes for impairments. The downstream protection values (DPVs) for protection of downstream estuaries are TN concentrations that are derived from estimates of TN loads that EPA purports to be protective of estuarine water quality. These protective TN loads are not based on consideration of any ambient response parameters or causes for impairment in the estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1715-3.001.070

Author Name: Wilson C. Organization: Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. on behalf of Everglades Agricultural Area Environmental Protection District Treatment of N and P is Inconsistent with Respect to Attenuation The methodology proposed by USEPA for DPVs for protection of downstream estuaries assumes attenuation of TN as water travels from locations upstream in the watershed to locations near the mouth of the estuary. USEPA did not propose DPVs for TP for protection of downstream estuaries but stated that the approach for TP would be essentially the same as for TN. However, the assumption of attenuation of TP for protection of downstream estuaries is inconsistent with the EPA assumption of no instream attenuation (100 percent delivery) of TP for protection of downstream lakes. The translation of downstream protection values (DPVs) for estuaries into their tributaries considers in-stream losses of nitrogen. Results from the SPARROW model were used to estimate the fraction of the nitrogen flux from each tributary

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3829Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams that is ultimately delivered to the estuary. This approach results in significantly higher DPVs for tributaries located a long distance from their terminus, compared to tributaries located nearer to the estuary (Dilks 2010). No similar consideration was given when translating downstream protection values of phosphorus for lakes into their tributaries. Instead, EPA has proposed to apply the DPVs calculated where a tributary enters the lake as the applicable criterion for all stream segments upstream of the lake. This underestimates the loss of phosphorus that occurs between tributaries and lakes, and results in largely overprotective DPVs for tributaries located a significant distance upstream of their lake. The Technical Support Document for the Proposed Rule (USEPA 2010a) contains no discussion of the consideration of instream losses of phosphorus. The only justification is provided in the Proposed Rule itself, which states: The same processes that occur in lakes and affect lake water phosphorus concentration may also occur in streams that feed lakes and affect stream water phosphorus concentrations. These processes include sorption to stream bed sediments, uptake into biota, and release into the water column from decaying vegetation. USEPA took into consideration these processes when deciding whether it would be appropriate to add a term to the model equation to account for phosphorus loss or uptake within the streams in deriving stream criteria for downstream lake protection. However, the net result of these processes is nutrient spiraling, whereby nutrients released upstream gradually propagate downstream at a rate slower than that of the moving water, and cycle into and out of the food chain in the process. Over the short term, the result may be water concentrations that decrease in the downstream direction. However, unlike for nitrogen, there are no long-term phosphorus net removal processes at work in streams. Phosphorus adsorbed to sediment particles is eventually carried downstream with the sediment, and phosphorus taken up by plants is eventually returned to the flowing water. Over the long term, upstream phosphorus inputs are in equilibrium with downstream phosphorus outputs. This justification is flawed. The description of relevant phosphorus processes ignores the significant fate processes of settling of particulate phosphorus from the water column to the bed sediments, and ultimate burial of this phosphorus by additional sedimentation. This omission is magnified by the statement "there are no long-term phosphorus net removal processes at work in streams" and "Over the long term, upstream phosphorus inputs are in equilibrium with downstream phosphorus outputs." Deep burial of phosphorus is certainly long-term phosphorus net removal processes at work in streams, and one that results in downstream phosphorus output being significantly less than upstream input (Dilks, 2010) 

# Comment ID 1731-1.001.009

Author Name: Gibson T. Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg The proposed rule discusses the potential to develop site specific alternative criteria to address local concerns. This process is prohibitively expensive with no assurance of achieving the goals even if the studies behind the development of the alternative criteria are scientifically sound. Further, achieving the proposed standards does not mean a positive biological response will be obtained. These reasons support use of the RA plan for the Tampa Bay region.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3830Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1731-1.001.010

Author Name: Gibson T. Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg We appreciate the EPA postponing the downstream protective values until the development of nutrient criteria for estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1731-1.001.011

Author Name: Gibson T. Organization: Engineering & Capital Improvements, City of St. Petersburg In streams, there is a concern about whether there exists a dose response in the streams of our urban environment. Streams and creeks have been a conduit for stormwater transport since the City's development. A positive biological response to lower nutrients in these developed creeks is doubtful due to the current nature of the creeks. In many areas, they have been channelized or lined and do not provide biological habitat. Protective loads for downstream receiving water bodies have been developed as part of the loads developed for stakeholders of the RA plan. EPA needs to consider the protective loads in the RA plan for the Tampa Bay region. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me 727-893­ 7295 or by email at Thomas.Gibson@stpete.org

. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.046

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Streams [Section III.C(6)(b)] - Estuarine DPVs 1. EPAs determination, as outlined in its letter of March 17, 2010, to delay finalizing promulgation of the "downstream protection values," or DPVs for estuaries is acknowledged and appreciated. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.047

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 2. EPA is encouraged to work closely with FDEP, and especially local groups engaged in nutrient management, to establish appropriate protective loads for Florida's estuaries. This is especially true relative to working with the Tampa

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3831Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium in establishing values for Tampa Bay and the Tampa Bay tributaries. The following presents comments on the methodology as proposed. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.048

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 3. The methodology utilized in the development of protective loadings for the estuaries is unrealistic and did not take advantage of the extensive efforts being conducted by FDEP and other groups around the State (specific example of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Consortium). Additionally, there were numerous TMDLs approved by EPA that were not considered in the assessment of the protective load for the estuarine segments. EPA makes the inappropriate assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries. In Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses serve as the desired endpoint to assess water quality management activities aimed at controlling nutrient loadings. Seagrass coverage has increased in each of these systems since the 1980s, indicating the success of watershed management actions. Therefore, it is difficult to justify additional load reductions where empirical data show such responses to management actions specifically developed to address water quality problems. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.049

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 4. The blanket methodology utilized to define the protective loads for all of the estuaries targeted, was unrealistic and not reflective of true conditions. The determination of appropriate protective loads needs to be on an estuary by estuary basis and reflective of actual biological response measured within the system. It is recommended that EPA utilize the extensive data available throughout the state being developed by various groups as well as TMDLs already approved and undergoing BMAP development. It is not reasonable for EPA to superceede the extensive amount of work that has gone on in many estuaries throughout Florida. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.050

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 5. The SPARROW model is too coarse, was calibrated to a very small data set, and is not an accurate representation of the conditions within Florida's estuaries and their tributaries. This essentially represents several steps backward in the TMDL efforts around the State on a WBID-by-WBID basis that FDEP and other agencies within Florida have been working on.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3832Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1761-3.001.051

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 6. Valigura et al. (2000) conducted a preliminary comparison of SPARROW- derived estimates on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts and concluded that while SPARROW accurately predicted the mean loading to the estuaries as a group, "it did a poor job of predicting the load to any one particular estuary..." (EPA-HQ-OW-2009- 0596-0140) 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.052

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 7. The determination of delivery ratios from upstream segments did not account for numerous key factors that may account for losses and were therefore unrealistic. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.053

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 8. The current application of SPARROW has already resulted in the omission of 7 out of 23 estuaries (see Federal Register) due to model limitations related to canals, lack of data, etc. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.054

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 9. The EPA method assumes that estuaries are not meeting their current uses and that current loads are at or above protective TN loads. This is not an appropriate assumption for all waterbodies within the State. For example, extensive work done by the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Consortium (TBNC) has shown that existing loads are protective of the designated uses as defined based upon Seagrass targets. Extensive efforts have gone into the development of these loading numbers and the establishment of a Reasonable Assurance Plan to implement the program. EPA promulgation of the NNC as outlined herein, would negate the extensive and peer reviewed process undergone by the TBNC which has received review and positive feedback by EPA.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3833Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.055

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County 10. Application of the SPARROW model does not incorporate the best available information at local scales, using only 1:500,000-scale hydrography and estimated loads not always based on all available data for a watershed. A more appropriate application would utilize information already available, as for loadings to Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and more refined hydrography to calibrate the model. It is important to understand, however, that the model is used only because of the EPA assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries, and thus some method is used to derive protective loads. For those estuaries with empirical data indicating that protective loads are not being exceeded, and with technically sound and defensible estimates of what the protective loads are, application of SPARROW is not only superfluous but wasteful of resources as well. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.134

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(6) Protection of Downstream Lakes and Estuaries Statement: Rather, the proposed values represent the output of a systematic and scientific approach that may be generally applicable to all flowing waters in Florida that terminate in estuaries for the purpose of ensuring the protection of downstream estuaries. EPA is interested in obtaining feedback at this time on this systematic and scientific approach. Comment: It is premature to propose DPVs prior to finalization of estuarine values. EPA states: "these proposed nitrogen downstream protection values are based on substantial data, thorough scientific analysis, and extensive technical evaluation." The estuarine DPV approach seems to have only relied on the SPARROW model and does not represent the ‘weight-of-evidence' approach favored by EPA. EPA states: "the proposed values represent the output of a systematic and scientific approach that may be generally applicable to all flowing waters in Florida that terminate in estuaries for the purpose of ensuring the protection of downstream estuaries." ATM disagrees with this statement and EPA did not make use of the wealth of data and analyses available to them via FDEP. The issuance of a NODA (notice of data availability) is beneficial.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3834Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1761-3.001.138

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(6)(b) Downstream Protection of Estuaries III.C(6)(b)(i) Overview Statement: The remaining discussion focuses on TN, for which EPA has already computed DPVs. The approach for computing DPVs for TP from estimates of the protective TP load is expected to be essentially the same as for TN. However, there is some question as to whether the same approach used to determine the protective TN load will also apply to TP. EPA requests comment on this issue. Comment: In general, it is believed that DPVs are not required because IPVs are inherently protective of downstream effects (FDEP, 2010). Significantly more research needs to be done on in-stream nutrient removal and settling for DPVs to be used. Influences from sediment and additional hydrodynamics need to be incorporated into this analysis. WBIDs were originally developed based on watersheds and it is believed that the effort gone into delineating these areas factored in downstream effects. It is noted that FDEP has cited two examples (Steinhatchee and Waccasassa basins) illustrating an apparent downstream additive effect of TN. Nonetheless, there are many other systems where this additive effect simply isn't seen. This generally implies that downstream WBIDs are more likely to be impaired than upstream WBIDs. A result of this implication is the extremely low TN DPV values suggested by EPA in comparison to IPVs for the same WBIDs. Many of the proposed TN DPVs are simply unattainable under any scenario, including "natural" or "background" conditions. If DPVs are believed to be necessary by EPA, the establishment of TN and TP values should be performed in a similar manner. Due to the fact that most estuaries are TN limited and that many of the incoming streams also exhibit TN limited characteristics, it is believed that the initial effort should be devoted to TN (which the EPA has done). Despite the predominance of TN limited estuaries, the development of TP DPVs is also needed and a similar method would provide consistency. EPA did not calculate DPVs for 7 large estuary systems due to "requisite information related to TN loading from the highly managed canals and waterways cannot be derived from SAGT-SPARROW.." Therefore the current SPARROW method shows no consistency for TN alone and questions it use.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3835Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.139

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(6)(b)(ii) EPA Approach to Estimating Protective Nitrogen Loads for Estuaries Statement: EPA requests comment on its use of the SPARROW model to derive protective loads for downstream estuaries, as well as data and analyses that would support alternate methods of deriving downstream loads, or alternate methods of ensuring protection of designated uses in estuaries. Comment: [COMMENT ON GENERAL LACK OF USE OF LOCAL INFORMATION, SITE SPECIFICS] The use of the SPARROW model should be abandoned for determining protective TN or TP DPVs. The SPARROW model seems to be providing the entire basis in establishing estuarine DPV's, which seems contrary to the ‘weight of evidence' approach utilized for other water body NNCs. Additionally, not enough information is provided about the SPARROW modeling approach. Several pre-processing tools such as ‘Fluxmaster' and ‘ESTIMATOR' are used and little to no information is provided. In general, it seems like inputs to the model have been massaged significantly (e.g., detrended, regressed, averaged, natural logged, etc.) and more information needs to be provided. Time-scales of associated inputs would also help to understand model processes. For example, the modeling is ‘hypothetically' run for 2002, however flows for this modeling exercise are a detrended longterm average from 1974-2004. In several cases, the long-term average flow is approximately is at least 2 times as large as the measured 2002 flows. Valigura et al. (2000) conducted a preliminary comparison of SPARROW- derived estimates with independently derived estimates of N loading to 97 estuaries on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the U.S. Based on that comparison Valigura et al. (2000) concluded that while "SPARROW accurately predicted it did a poor job of predicting the load to any one particular estuary..."(OW-2009-0596-0140.pdf) Additionally, the SPARROW was modeled for only 16 out of 23 estuaries due to lack of loading data and areas with significant amounts of canals; which is an example of its limited application potential. According to the SPARROW User manual, it also describes it limitations in modeling alternative scenarios due the model being fit to existing conditions. Limited Calibration Data Additionally, as stated in the modeling report, only 331 water stations were used for calibration for the entire model domain (including TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, LA). It is noted that some available stations have longer and arguably higher quality data sets, however a methodology needs to be presented to justify data inclusion/omission and to verify that the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3836Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams modelers avoided ‘cherrypicking' favorable stations. The Hoos study also cites that an additional "306 sites were located on tributaries too small to be represented in the relatively coarse 1 : 500 000 ERF1 2." This implies that approximately 1⁄2 of all instream water quality data is unusable for this SPARROW model application. The exclusion of such a significant number of data stations and streams needs to be justified with convergence or sensitivity testing (or similar technique). Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 8: White triangles indicate stations that were not used for model calibration. Limited calibration in several areas, when it seems that data is available in these areas. (Figure source: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0139). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 9: Comparison of SPARROW model with FDEP stream network. SPARROW model is very coarse and does not include many small streams. See original comment letter. Additional Concerns:

• Current loadings represent the upper bound which assumes the system is impaired or at the edge of impairment. This is not necessarily a good assumption as there are estuaries that are not listed.

• EPA states that they used TMDLs and PLRGs as additional information. There is no evidence of this.

• The intercomparison of load reductions and the assumption that there is some standard reduction levels that apply around the state is a very poor assumption. One can't extrapolate one estuary to another, also local load difference is based upon different areas of estuaries

• "EPA computed the protective TN load by reducing the current TN load by one half of the anthropogenic contribution to that load" - This seems arbitrary and capricious. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.140

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(6)(b)(iii) Computing Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) Statement: EPA requests comment on the binning approach for calculating DPVs, which allows for a relatively simple table of DPVs to be presented as compared to using the actual estimate of fraction TN delivered to calculate a DPV unique to each WBID using formula (1), above. Comment: The binning approach seems reasonable in theory; however the results from the SPARROW application are not reasonable. DPVs are too extreme and unrealistically low. It is noted that this is not due to the binning approach,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3837Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams however the approach was refined/tuned according to results and it is believed that new results would require additional refinement/tuning of the binning approach. Additional concerns are that the EPA protocol assumes the only nitrogen loss is through denitrification and that stream losses are modeled as first order decay. EPA's recognition that "some fraction of nitrogen transported in streams is retained or assimilated before reaching estuarine waters help ensure that the DPVs are not overprotective of downstream use in any particular estuary" is not true if loss rates used are not realistic. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.141

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(6)(b)(iv) EPA Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) Comment: In general, it is believed that DPVs are not required because IPVs are inherently protective of downstream effects (FDEP, 2010). Significantly more research needs to be done on in-stream nutrient removal and settling for DPVs to be used. Influences from sediment and additional hydrodynamics need to be incorporated into this analysis. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.142

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County III.C(6)(b)(v) Application of DPVs for Downstream Estuary Protection Statement:EPA requests comment on whether these adjustments should be allowed to occur in the implementation of the reallocation process rather than as a SSAC. Comment: These adjustments should be allowed to occur during a SSAC. Note that the system, as proposed, would likely result inan overwhelming number of requests for SSACs due to the overly conservative protocol which impairs many nonimpaired WBIDs (i.e., significant Type I error). 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.143

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3838Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Statement: EPA requests comment on the DPV approach, the technical merit of the estimated protective loadings, and the technical merit of the method for calculating stream reach values. Comment: The SPARROW model application for DPVs needs to be abandoned. It is too coarse a model for this application. In terms of load estimation: As cited in the federal register: "TN load estimates explain 96% of the variation in observed loads from monitoring sites across the region with no spatial bias at Florida sites." This statement is misleading in that the 0.96 correlation coefficient occurred for Models A, B, and C, indicating that the chosen Model B (which incorporates a regional scale hydrologic framework) does not increase model prediction of instream/downstream effect based on this correlation coefficient. Due to the complexities of the systems to be modeled and the nonlinear variations seen in the measured data, only weak correlations are typically shown in all of the TSD materials and therefore any statement such as "...estimates 96% of the variation..." raises a significant red flag. In reading through the SPARROW manual, it seems observed TN flux is created by "The extrapolation of infrequently sampled water-quality data and removal of trend dictates the specification of a model of flux." Therefore the SPARROW model extrapolates measured TN data to measured USGS flows. This extrapolation relies on a strong correlation between flow and TN which is not seen in the data. As explained in (Hoos and McMahon, 2009) the "mean annual load was estimated as the product of daily streamflow and estimated daily concentration, which was modeled from nutrient water-quality data and streamflow data." [underline added]. Therefore the observed flux, or load, is not data. In an example application in the Users Manual, it states: "Flux estimates were based on a simple model in which the logarithm of concentration is regressed on the logarithm of contemporaneous flow, a time trend, and a sine and cosine term. The method of adjusted maximum likelihood (Cohn, Gilroy, and others, 1992) was used to accommodate stations with censored data. All available flow and water-quality data between the period 1970 and 2000 were used at each station. As a result of NASQAN program changes, however, the number of observations and exact periods of record varied considerably across stations. An estimate of flux was made only if a station had at least 15 water-quality observations." [underline added] The above excerpt seems to claim that a 30 year flux time series can be created using only 15 water- quality observations. This seems extremely questionable and more information is needed on the current SPARROW application in creating "observed" loads. Additionally, Hoos and McMahon (2009) further explain that the predicted load includes may variables and coefficients

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3839Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams and also includes "vectors of measured stream and reservoir variables, respectively (examples include stream-water depth or velocity and reservoir areal hydraulic loading);" [underline added]. A strong correlation between observed and predicted loads is not unexpected when measured stream flow (or associated parameters such as velocity) factors into both equations. The predicted load equation also benefits from numerous coefficients "estimated by the model" As explained the SPARROW user manual: "the R-square and Adj R-Sq statistic for a SPARROW model tend to be large (greater than 0.6) partly because of the fact that much of the variation in the dependent variable is associated with the size (drainage area) of the basin upstream from the monitored reach, and drainage area in turn is typically highly correlated with contaminant source variables. A high R-square therefore does not necessarily indicate a good model fit." [underline added] In reviewing the SPARROW Users Manual, a few other issues related to its application for DPV estimation are also potentially concerning. In reference to using a hypothetical base year (point) in time: "By this, it is not meant that the record must be representative of the hydrologic conditions in the base year: the SPARROW model is estimated using mean estimates of water quality with the intention of removing variations due to hydrologic conditions. " The removal of varying hydrologic conditions (low flow, high flow, 7Q10, etc.) in predicting water quality is an unorthodox approach and essentially all of the TSD documentation shows significant but weak correlations between stressor and response variables. Therefore a steadystate model based on nonlinear regression analysis is also not likely applicable. Modeling of the long-term means also limits the models ability to simulate alternative scenarios (e.g., varying loads, flows, wet-events, dry-events, etc.) In terms of alternatives modeling, the SPARROW Users Manual states: "It should also be noted that if the SPARROW model is run in prediction mode for purposes of simulating water-quality conditions under alternative management scenarios, then it is not appropriate to condition the predictions on measured flux at monitored reaches. The measured flux is consistent with management actions actually taken. As such, the conditioning of predictions on measured flux would not incorporate the changes in water quality associated with the alternative management scenario. For purposes of comparison, therefore, it is reasonable to obtain predictions for both existing conditions and alternative management scenarios that are not conditioned on measured flux."This seems to indicate that modeling alternative management scenarios (which is a common task for deterministic timevarying models such as WASP, HSPF, etc. and even steady-state deterministic models such as BASINS) cannot be easily accomplished with SPARROW due to its reliance on equations and coefficients fitted only to existing conditions. Therefore its use to establish "background loads" cannot be easily verified. In EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.2, the SPARROW model is used to create current loads and background loads. It is important to note that several Florida estuaries would be inappropriate as targets for SPARROW modeling. Specifically, several estuaries of the southern peninsula, such as Florida Bay, Whitewater Bay and Rookery Bay, are not amenable to analysis by the SPARROW watershed model. Large interaction of surface flows with groundwater flows, the lack of mass flow or well-constrained point-source input, and multiple ungauged inputs would render such

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3840Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams modeling ineffective (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010). EPA is apparently aware of weaknesses in the SPARROW model because 7 out of 23 estuaries were not modeled for the proposed DPV rules. 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.144

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Statement: EPA also requests comment on other scientifically defensible approaches for ensuring protection of designated uses in estuaries. Comment: Significantly more research needs to be done on in-stream nutrient removal and settling for DPVs to be used. Influences from sediment and additional hydrodynamics need to be incorporated into this analysis. WBIDs were originally developed based on watersheds and it is believed that the effort gone into delineating these areas factored in downstream effects. Additionally, FDEP has provided several analyses to defend its assertion that IPVs are inherently protective of downstream estuaries (FDEP, 2010). 

# Comment ID 1761-3.001.145

Author Name: Merrill M. Organization: Hillsborough County Statement: EPA requests comments and welcomes thorough evaluation on the technical and scientific basis of these proposed downstream protection values as part of the broader comment and evaluation process that this proposal initiates. Comment: The federal register TSD EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.2 found "ample evidence is available to suggest that Florida's estuaries are, in general, not in good ecological condition. The National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment (NEEA) Update (Bricker et al. 2007)." ATM reviewed this report and the SPARROW model was cited in the Bricker report as evidence for impaired estuaries. This is a circular reference and should not be cited as a reason to develop DPVs with the SPARROW model. The "ample evidence" is also questionable as it seems like the Bricker document was developed based primarily on subjective opinions. Another interesting comment found in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0165.1 states that: "ANERR staff are actually more

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3841Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams concerned over potential decreases in nutrients (from diversion of upstream waters) than increases in nutrients (ANERR, 2009), since nutrient decreases would negatively affect the currently healthy community structure and function, as well as productivity of the bay (Putland, 2005)." In general, more WBID-by-WBID analysis is suggested. Estuaries are typically relatively complex systems that deserve an individual analysis. A good example of this is the Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) for Tampa Bay, which has been incrementally improving water quality within Tampa Bay for decades. The NMC was developed as a reaction to the degrading water quality of Tampa Bay. In contrast, EPA is striving to be proactive in identifying waterways that are typically not known to be impacted. While this is a worthwhile effort, it must be applied carefully in order to reduce excessive Type I errors. The proposed protocols, especially the DPVs, are anticipated to result in too many "false positives" and many, many SSAC applications. 

# Comment ID 1767-1.001.002

Author Name: Vinson R. Organization: TGA Sod LP and Turfgrass America 1. The EPA used the US Geological Survey's "Sparrow" model, which the US Geological Survey indicates should not be used on water bodies impacted by groundwater and was designed as a broad-brush, generalized analytical tool not meant for calculating specific numerical nutrient levels. 

# Comment ID 1769-1.001.024

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Cocoa E. Estuarine Downstream Protection Values For a complete discussion regarding Cocoa's technical comments on the estuarine DPVs in the Proposed Rule, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". However, a summary ofthese comments is included below. In establishing estuarine DPVs, EPA makes the inappropriate assumption that current loads are at or above protective 1N loads for all Florida estuaries. In Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses serve as the desired endpoint to assess water quality management activities aimed at controlling nutrient loadings. Seagrass coverage has increased in each of these systems since the 1980s, indicating the success of watershed management actions. Therefore, it is difficult to justify additional load reductions where empirical data show such responses to management actions specifically developed to address water quality problems. The EPA's utilization of SPARROW to determine protective loads to Florida estuaries is also inappropriate, as the regional model was not intended to be used for sitespecific application in regulatory programs. USGS suggests that for

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3842Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams local-scale use, estimated loads for actual time periods should be used. In Florida, loading estimates based on best available information exist for Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and should be used when evaluating estuarine protective loads. The SPARROW model calibration fitted model coefficients based on data from sites in Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, so that the coefficients and explanatory variables providing the best fit for the entire model domain are not necessarily the same as would be found if the model were fit for a specific watershed or state. To utilize SPARROW model output to establish estuarine protective values and downstream protective values within streams of Florida, it would be much more appropriate to limit the model's spatial domain to Florida or even a group of Florida watersheds, and derive explanatory variables and fitted model coefficients based on this more appropriate model domain. The SPARROW model was not validated, with calibration only for 2002 conditions, using long-term gaged loads and atmospheric deposition loads detrended to 2002. It is also inappropriate to utilize a model which has not undergone validation under conditions other than those used for calibration. The use of a model for management decision making is predicated on the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions when observed inputs are provided. The robustness of the model is often determined by testing the model under varying inputs. After calibration, the model is validated under input conditions different than those used for calibration, and the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions with this different set of inputs attests to the ability of the model to be used as a predictive tool. Additionally, application of the SPARROW model does not incorporate the best available information at local scales, using only 1:500,000-scale hydrography and estimated loads not always based on all available data for a watershed. A more appropriate application would utilize information already available, as for loadings to Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and more refined hydrography to calibrate the model. It is important to understand, however, that the model is used only because of the EPA assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries, and thus some method is used to derive protective loads. For those estuaries with empirical data indicating that protective loads are not being exceeded, and with technically sound and defensible estimates of what the protective loads are, application of SPARROW is not only superfluous but wasteful of resources as well. Finally, the application of the reverse attenuation methodology to derive DPVs for stream reaches protective of downstream estuaries has merit, but is predicated on the model providing an accurate estimation of the protective value for a given estuary, which the SAGT SPARROW application does not provide. Where accepted estuarine loading estimates are available, a similar process could be utilized to derive DPVs. 

# Comment ID 1770-1.001.048

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Plant City E. Estuary Downstream Protection Values For a complete discussion regarding Plant City's technical comments on the estuarine DPVs in the Proposed Rule, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". However, a summary of these

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3843Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

comments is included below. In establishing estuarine DPVs, EPA makes the inappropriate assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries. In Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses serve as the desired endpoint to assess water quality management activities aimed at controlling nutrient loadings. Seagrass coverage has increased in each of these systems since the 1980s, indicating the success of watershed management actions. Therefore, it is difficult to justify additional load reductions where empirical data show such responses to management actions specifically developed to address water quality problems. The EPA's utilization of SPARROW to determine protective loads to Florida estuaries is also inappropriate, as the regional model was not intended to be used for sitespecific application in regulatory programs. USGS suggests that for local-scale use, estimated loads for actual time periods should be used. In Florida, loading estimates based on best available information exist for Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and should be used when evaluating estuarine protective loads. The SPARROW model calibration fitted model coefficients based on data from sites in Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, so that the coefficients and explanatory variables providing the best fit for the entire model domain are not necessarily the same as would be found if the model were fit for a specific watershed or state. To utilize SPARROW model output to establish estuarine protective values and downstream protective values within streams of Florida, it would be much more appropriate to limit the model's spatial domain to Florida or even a group of Florida watersheds, and derive explanatory variables and fitted model coefficients based on this more appropriate model domain. The SPARROW model was not validated, with calibration only for 2002 conditions, using long-term gaged loads and atmospheric deposition loads detrended to 2002. It is also inappropriate to utilize a model which has not undergone validation under conditions other than those used for calibration. The use of a model for management decision making is predicated on the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions when observed inputs are provided. The robustness of the model is often determined by testing the model under varying inputs. After calibration, the model is validated under input conditions different than those used for calibration, and the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions with this different set of inputs attests to the ability of the model to be used as a predictive tool. Additionally, application of the SPARROW model does not incorporate the best available information at local scales, using only 1:500,000-scale hydrography and estimated loads not always based on all available data for a watershed. A more appropriate application would utilize information already available, as for loadings to Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and more refmed hydrography to calibrate the modeL It is important to understand, however, that the model is used only because of the EPA assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries, and thus some method is used to derive protective loads. For those estuaries with empirical data indicating that protective loads are not being exceeded, and with technically sound and defensible estimates of what the protective loads are, application of SPARROW is not only superfluous but wasteful of resources as well. Finally, the application of the reverse attenuation methodology to derive DPVs for stream reaches protective of downstream estuaries has merit, but is predicated on the model providing an accurate estimation of the protective value for a given estuary, which the SAGT SPARROW application does not provide. Where accepted estuarine loading estimates are available, a similar process could be utilized to derive DPVs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3844Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1771-1.001.058

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Seminole County E. Estuarine Downstream Protection Values For a complete discussion regarding Seminole County's technical comments on the estuarine DPVs in the Proposed Rule, please refer to Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". However, a summary of these comments is included below. In establishing estuarine DPVs, EPA makes the inappropriate assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries. In Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses serve as the desired endpoint to assess water quality management activities aimed at controlling nutrient loadings. Seagrass coverage has increased in each of these systems since the 1980s, indicating the success of watershed management actions. Therefore, it is difficult to justify additional load reductions where empirical data show such responses to management actions specifically developed to address water quality problems. The EPA's utilization of SPARROW to determine protective loads to Florida estuaries is also inappropriate, as the regional model was not intended to be used for sitespecific application in regulatory programs. USGS suggests that for local-scale use, estimated loads for actual time periods should be used. In Florida, loading estimates based on best available information exist for Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and should be used when evaluating estuarine protective loads. The SPARROW model calibration fitted model coefficients based on data from sites in Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, so that the coefficients and explanatory variables providing the best fit for the entire model domain are not necessarily the same as would be found if the model were fit for a specific watershed or state. To utilize SPARROW model output to establish estuarine protective values and downstream protective values within streams of Florida, it would be much more appropriate to limit the model's spatial domain to Florida or even a group of Florida watersheds, and derive explanatory variables and fitted model coefficients based on this more appropriate model domain. The SPARROW model was not validated, with calibration only for 2002 conditions, using long-term gauged loads and atmospheric deposition loads detrended to 2002. It is also inappropriate to utilize a model which has not undergone validation under conditions other than those used for calibration. The use of a model for management decision making is predicated on the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions when observed inputs are provided. The robustness of the model is often determined by testing the model under varying inputs. After calibration, the model is validated under input conditions different than those used for calibration, and the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions with this different set of inputs attests to the ability of the model to be used as a predictive tool. Additionally, application of the SPARROW model does not incorporate the best available information at local scales, using only 1:500,000-scale hydrography and estimated loads not always based on all available data for a watershed. A more appropriate application would utilize information already available, as for loadings to Tampa Bay, Indian River

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3845Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and more refined hydrography to calibrate the model. It is important to understand, however, that the model is used only because of the EPA assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries, and thus some method is used to derive protective loads. For those estuaries with empirical data indicating that protective loads are not being exceeded, and with technically sound and defensible estimates of what the protective loads are, application of SPARROW is not only superfluous but wasteful of resources as well. Finally, the application of the reverse attenuation methodology to derive DPVs for stream reaches protective of downstream estuaries has merit, but is predicated on the model providing an accurate estimation of the protective value for a given estuary, which the SAGT SPARROW application does not provide. Where accepted estuarine loading estimates are available, a similar process could be utilized to derive DPVs. 

# Comment ID 1772-1.001.052

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of City of Titusville E. Estuarine Downstream Protection Values For a complete discussion regarding Titusville's technical comments on the estuarine DPVs in the Proposed Rule, please refer to the Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". However, a summary of these comments is included below. In establishing estuarine DPVs, EPA makes the inappropriate assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries. In Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses serve as the desired endpoint to assess water quality management activities aimed at controlling nutrient loadings. Seagrass coverage has increased in each of these systems since the 1980s, indicating the success of watershed management actions. Therefore, it is difficult to justify additional load reductions where empirical data show such responses to management actions specifically developed to address water quality problems. The EPA's utilization of SPARROW to determine protective loads to Florida estuaries is also inappropriate, as the regional model was not intended to be used for site-specific application in regulatory programs. USGS suggests that for local-scale use, estimated loads for actual time periods should be used. In Florida, loading estimates based on best available information exist for Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and should be used when evaluating estuarine protective loads. The SPARROW model calibration fitted model coefficients based on data from sites in Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, so that the coefficients and explanatory variables providing the best fit for the entire model domain are not necessarily the same as would be found if the model were fit for a specific watershed or state. To utilize SPARROW model output to establish estuarine protective values and downstream protective values within streams of Florida, it would be much more appropriate to limit the model's spatial domain to Florida or even a group of Florida watersheds, and derive explanatory variables and fitted model coefficients based on this more appropriate model domain.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3846Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The SPARROW model was not validated, with calibration only for 2002 conditions, using long-term gaged loads and atmospheric deposition loads detrended to 2002. It is also inappropriate to utilize a model which has not undergone validation under conditions other than those used for calibration. The use of a model for management decision making is predicated on the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions when observed inputs are provided. The robustness of the model is often determined by testing the model under varying inputs. After calibration, the model is validated under input conditions different than those used for calibration, and the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions with this different set of inputs attests to the ability of the model to be used as a predictive tool. Additionally, application of the SPARROW model does not incorporate the best available information at local scales, using only 1 :500,000-scale hydrography and estimated loads not always based on all available data for a watershed. A more appropriate application would utilize information already available, as for loadings to Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and more refined hydrography to calibrate the model. It is important to understand, however, that the model is used only because of the EPA assumption that current loads are at or above protective 1N loads for all Florida estuaries, and thus some method is used to derive protective loads. For those estuaries with empirical data indicating that protective loads are not being exceeded, and with technically sound and defensible estimates of what the protective loads are, application of SPARROW is not only superfluous but wasteful of resources as well. Finally, the application of the reverse attenuation methodology to derive DPVs for stream reaches protective of downstream estuaries has merit, but is predicated on the model providing an accurate estimation of the protective value for a given estuary, which the SAGT SPARROW application does not provide. Where accepted estuarine loading estimates are available, a similar process could be utilized to derive DPVs. 

# Comment ID 1773-1.001.053

Author Name: de la Parte, Jr. E. Organization: de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. on behalf of Orlando Utilities Commission E. Estuarine Downstream Protection Values For a complete discussion regarding QUC's technical comments on the estuarine DPVs in the Proposed Rule, please refer to Technical Discussion document attached hereto as Appendix "A". However, a summary of these comments is included below. In establishing estuarine DPVs, EPA makes the inappropriate assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries. In Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses serve as the desired endpoint to assess water quality management activities aimed at controlling nutrient loadings. Seagrass coverage has increased in each of these systems since the 1980s, indicating the success of watershed management actions. Therefore, it is difficult to justify additional load reductions where empirical data show such responses to management actions specifically developed to address water quality problems. The EPA's utilization of SPARROW to determine protective loads to Florida estuaries is also inappropriate, as the regional model was not intended to be used for sitespecific application in regulatory programs. USGS suggests that for

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3847Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams local-scale use, estimated loads for actual time periods should be used. In Florida, loading estimates based on best available information exist for Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and should be used when evaluating estuarine protective loads. The SPARROW model calibration fitted model coefficients based on data from sites in Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, so that the coefficients and explanatory variables providing the best fit for the entire model domain are not necessarily the same as would be found if the model were fit for a specific watershed or state. To utilize SPARROW model output to establish estuarine protective values and downstream protective values within streams of Florida, it would be much more appropriate to limit the model's spatial domain to Florida or even a group of Florida watersheds, and derive explanatory variables and fitted model coefficients based on this more appropriate model domain. The SPARROW model was not validated, with calibration only for 2002 conditions, using long-term gaged loads and atmospheric deposition loads detrended to 2002. It is also inappropriate to utilize a model which has not undergone validation under conditions other than those used for calibration. The use of a model for management decision making is predicated on the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions when observed inputs are provided. The robustness of the model is often determined by testing the model under varying inputs. After calibration, the model is validated under input conditions different than those used for calibration, and the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions with this different set of inputs attests to the ability of the model to be used as a predictive tool. Additionally, application of the SPARROW model does not incorporate the best available information at local scales, using only 1:500,000-scale hydrography and estimated loads not always based on all available data for a watershed. A more appropriate application would utilize information already available, as for loadings to Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and more refined hydrography to calibrate the model. It is important to understand, however, that the model is used only because of the EPA assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries, and thus some method is used to derive protective loads. For those estuaries with empirical data indicating that protective loads are not being exceeded, and with technically sound and defensible estimates of what the protective loads are, application of SPARROW is not only superfluous but wasteful of resources as well. Finally, the application of the reverse attenuation methodology to derive DPYs for stream reaches protective of downstream estuaries has merit, but is predicated on the model providing an accurate estimation of the protective value for a given estuary, which the SAGT SPARROW application does not provide. Where accepted estuarine loading estimates are available, a similar process could be utilized to derive DPVs. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.003

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 2. We understand that the Agency has decided to delay finalizing promulgation of the "downstream protection values" (DPVs) with respect to downstream estuary protection and intends to address this issue in the 2011 estuary and coastal rulemaking. The DPVs used the U.S. Geological Survey's SPARROW model as a teclmical foundation for the proposed values.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3848Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Given our very significant concel'lls with the use of SPARROW as a model for predicting downstream protection values in Florida and the fact that it may nonetheless be included in (subsequent) EPA regulations concerning estuaries in 2011, our comments are written so as to assume that this provision is still contained in the proposed rules. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.015

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 8. Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries. EPA proposes to use the South Atlantic Gulf and Tennessee (SAGT) version of the USGS SPARROW model to determine the downstream protection value (OPV) for tolal nitrogen in Florida estuaries. EPA questions the use of this method for total phosphorus in estuaries, yet many of the Florida estuaries are phosphorus limited. This comment reflects also on its applicability to the control of total nitrogen as well. Furthermore, the model uses only 4 classes of nitrogen inflows: fertilizer, manure, urban point source and atmospheric. Fertilizer and manure were estimated "from county-level fertilizer sales, census of agriculture and population estimates." From the Agency's TMDL website, sources of pollutant loading to national waters (not all nutrient related) include (in order of square miles tlu'eatened for estuaries and embayments): municipal discharges/sewage, atmospheric deposition, unknown, natural/wildlife, industrial, agricultural, hydro-modification, other, habitat alteration, urban-related runoff, unspecified nonpoint sources, resource extraction, recreational boating and a host of others with much smaller impacts. Recent studies of Tampa Bay nitrogen loading (Hillsborough River portion) showed that from 1972 to 2007, average loading was: 53.8% from nonpoint sources, 16.9% from domestic point sources, 11.5% from industrial point sources, 9% from springs and groundwater, 5.9 % from atmospheric deposition and 2.8% from material losses (basically industrial spills near the estuary) [source: Tampa Bay 2009 Reasonable Assurance Update]. It is clear that the 4 categories used by EPA do not reflect the diversity of sources identified by EPA itself, nor relatively easily obtained data for the larger Florida estuaries. Furthermore, EPA states on page 105 that the atmospheric load is "in all cases less, and often much less, than the measured deposition ... " so that to fully represent the total load of nitrogen in estuaries, one of the other 3 categories must be overstated to account for the misrepresentation of atmospheric loads. Finally, representatives of USGS have stated at Florida Numeric Nutrient Teclmical Advisory Committee meetings that the SPARROW model was designed for 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.016

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 9. Item Ill.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries. The rules propose to set the interim acceptable load to estuaries by stating that the acceptable load is between the current load and the natural load (as predicted by SPARROW). On page 105: "The protective TN load should be less than the current load and greater than the background load." This clearly assumes that the current load is not acceptable. As a counter-example, the current load has been adopted by EPA as the TMDL in Tampa Bay and for the last 20 years, grass bed coverage in Tampa Bay

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3849Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams have been steadily improving proving the validity of the TMDL. Yet EPA's proposed method computes "the protective TN load by reducing the current TN load by one half of the anthropogenic contribution to that load" (page 107). Therefore, with an overestimate of non-atmospheric contribution (see comment above) and the reduction of anthropomorphic loads by 50%, Tampa Bay's TN load would have to be significantly reduced using EPA's approach even though the resources to be protected (grass beds) have been improving with existing loading. This one example shows the method to be invalid. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.017

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida 10. Item Ill.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: The choice of half of the current anthropogenic load as the protective load is indefensible. The justification for this choice includes:

a. It is between the current load and the natural load; b. TMDLs done in Florida have resulted in a recommended 5% to 38% reduction in TN loads with a median of 38%; and

c. The percent reduction in Florida TMDLs (i.e., 38%) is similar to those recommended for well studied coastal systems outside of Florida. The conclusion is that the protective loads "are on average 25% lower than current TN loading" (page 107). Therefore, the approach results in 50% of the detailed TMDLs to be under-protective and 50% to be over-protective. Therefore, all of these TMDLs would require a Federal SSAC to be valid (page 123), even though the 50% reduction in existing anthropogenic loads is arbitrary. 

# Comment ID 1774-1.001.018

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida II. Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries. The proposed approach distributes the acceptable load to stream reaches based on the fraction of TN delivered to the estuary which, in turn, is based on the fraction of tributary flow into the estuary. For simplicity, it appears that the Agency chose to create 6 bins of Fraction Delivered: 0-50%, 51­ 60%, 61-70%, 71-80%, 81-90% and 91-100%, where each bin is represented by the high end of the bin. Therefore, the minimum Fraction Delivered is 50% meaning that 50% of the flux on TN in the downstream node is delivered to the estuary even if the actual amount is 0%. EPA states that this was done to reduce the "number of unique DPVs from thousands to less than 100" (page 113). This does reduce the number of unique values but does not increase its validity

- if fact, it reduces the applicability of the method.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3850Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1774-1.001.043

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida Examples
1. Sarasota Bay Sea Grass Coverage Sarasota County has conducted mapping, monitoring and biological investigations to develop a long-term action plan,and subsequently implemented numerous management practices in order to improve ambient water quality in a longterm effort to restore sea grass coverage in Sarasota Bay to documented levels in 1950. In 2010 the sea grasses have recovered to a degree that the current coverage exceeds the observed 1950 "baseline" condition. However, the EPA TMDL for Phillippi Creek requires a 70% reduction of current TN concentration on top of existing managementpractices. Clearly, the NNC would be overly protective when translated upstream for purposes of establishing end-ofpipe discharge concentrations. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.024

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Streams [Section III.C(6)(b)] - Estuarine DPVs 1. EPA's determination, as outlined in its letter of March 17, 2010, to delay finalizing promulgation of the "downstream protection values," or DPVs, for estuaries is acknowledged and appreciated. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.025

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 2. EPA is encouraged to work closely with FDEP, and especially local groups engaged in nutrient management, to establish appropriate protective loads for Florida's estuaries. This is especially true relative to working with the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium in establishing values for Tampa Bay and the Tampa Bay tributaries. The following presents comments on the methodology as proposed. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.028

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3851Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 9. The EPA method assumes that estuaries are not meeting their current uses and that current loads are at or above protective TN loads. This is not an appropriate assumption for all waterbodies within the State. For example, extensive work done by the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Consortium (TBNC) has shown that existing loads are protective of the designated uses as defined based upon Seagrass targets. Extensive efforts have gone into the development of these loading numbers and the establishment of a Reasonable Assurance Plan to implement the program. EPA promulgation of the NNC as outlined herein, would negate the extensive and peer reviewed process undergone by the TBNC which has received review and positive feedback by EPA. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.107

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(6)(b) Downstream Protection of Estuaries III.C(6)(b)(i) Overview Statement: The remaining discussion focuses on TN, for which EPA has already computed DPVs. The approach for computing DPVs for TP from estimates of the protective TP load is expected to be essentially the same as for TN. However, there is some question as to whether the same approach used to determine the protective TN load will also apply to TP. EPA requests comment on this issue. Comment: In general, it is believed that DPVs are not required because IPVs are inherently protective of downstream effects (FDEP, 2010). Significantly more research needs to be done on in-stream nutrient removal and settling for DPVs to be used. Influences from sediment and additional hydrodynamics need to be incorporated into this analysis. WBIDs were originally developed based on watersheds and it is believed that the effort gone into delineating these areas factored in downstream effects. It is noted that FDEP has cited two examples (Steinhatchee and Waccasassa basins) illustrating an apparent downstream additive effect of TN. Nonetheless, there are many other systems where this additive effect simply isn't seen. This generally implies that downstream WBIDs are more likely to be impaired than upstream WBIDs. A result of this implication is the extremely low TN DPV values suggested by EPA in comparison to IPVs for the same WBIDs. Many of the proposed TN DPVs are simply unattainable under any scenario, including "natural" or "background" conditions. If DPVs are believed to be necessary by EPA, the establishment of TN and TP values should be performed in a similar manner. Due to the fact that most estuaries are TN limited and that many of the incoming streams also exhibit TN limited characteristics, it is believed that the initial effort should be devoted to TN (which the EPA has done). Despite the predominance of TN limited estuaries, the development of TP DPVs is also needed and a similar method would provide

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3852Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams consistency. EPA did not calculate DPVs for 7 large estuary systems due to "requisite information related to TN loading from the highly managed canals and waterways cannot be derived from SAGT-SPARROW.." Therefore the current SPARROW method shows no consistency for TN alone and questions it use. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.108

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(6)(b)(ii) EPA Approach to Estimating Protective Nitrogen Loads for Estuaries Statement: EPA requests comment on its use of the SPARROW model to derive protective loads for downstream estuaries, as well as data and analyses that would support alternate methods of deriving downstream loads, or alternate methods of ensuring protection of designated uses in estuaries. Comment: The use of the SPARROW model should be abandoned for determining protective TN or TP DPVs. The SPARROW model seems to be providing the entire basis in establishing estuarine DPV's, which seems contrary to the ‘weight of evidence' approach utilized for other water body NNCs. Additionally, not enough information is provided about the SPARROW modeling approach. Several pre-processing tools such as ‘Fluxmaster' and ‘ESTIMATOR' are used and little to no information is provided. In general, it seems like inputs to the model have been massaged significantly (e.g., detrended, regressed, averaged, natural logged, etc.) and more information needs to be provided. Time-scales of associated inputs would also help to understand model processes. For example, the modeling is ‘hypothetically' run for 2002, however flows for this modeling exercise are a detrended longterm average from 1974-2004. In several cases, the long-term average flow is approximately is at least 2 times as large as the measured 2002 flows. Valigura et al. (2000) conducted a preliminary comparison of SPARROW- derived estimates with independently derived estimates of N loading to 97 estuaries on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the U.S. Based on that comparison Valigura et al. (2000) concluded that while "SPARROW accurately predicted it did a poor job of predicting the load to any one particular estuary..."(OW-2009-0596-0140.pdf) Additionally, the SPARROW was modeled for only 16 out of 23 estuaries due to lack of loading data and areas with significant amounts of canals; which is an example of its limited application potential. According to the SPARROW User manual, it also describes it limitations in modeling alternative scenarios due the model being fit to existing conditions. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.109

Author Name: Blanchard B.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3853Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Limited Calibration Data Additionally, as stated in the modeling report, only 331 water stations were used for calibration for the entire model domain (including TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, LA). It is noted that some available stations have longer and arguably higher quality data sets, however a methodology needs to be presented to justify data inclusion/omission and to verify that the modelers avoided ‘cherrypicking' favorable stations. The Hoos study also cites that an additional "306 sites were located on tributaries too small to be represented in the relatively coarse 1 : 500 000 ERF1 2." This implies that approximately 1⁄2 of all instream water quality data is unusable for this SPARROW model application. The exclusion of such a significant number of data stations and streams needs to be justified with convergence or sensitivity testing (or similar technique). Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 8: White triangles indicate stations that were not used for model calibration. Limited calibration in several areas, when it seems that data is available in these areas. (Figure source: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0139). See original comment letter. Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 9: Comparison of SPARROW model with FDEP stream network. SPARROW model is very coarse and does not include many small streams. See original comment letter. Additional Concerns:

• Current loadings represent the upper bound which assumes the system is impaired or at the edge of impairment. This is not necessarily a good assumption as there are estuaries that are not listed.

• EPA states that they used TMDLs and PLRGs as additional information. There is no evidence of this.

• The intercomparison of load reductions and the assumption that there is some standard reduction levels that apply around the state is a very poor assumption. One can't extrapolate one estuary to another, also local load difference is based upon different areas of estuaries

• "EPA computed the protective TN load by reducing the current TN load by one half of the anthropogenic contribution to that load" - This seems arbitrary and capricious. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.110

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(6)(b)(iii) Computing Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) Statement: EPA requests comment on the binning approach for calculating DPVs, which allows for a relatively simple table of DPVs to be presented as compared to using the actual estimate of fraction TN delivered to calculate a DPV unique to each WBID using formula (1), above. Comment: The binning approach seems reasonable in theory; however the results from the SPARROW application are not reasonable. DPVs are too extreme and unrealistically low. It is noted that this is not due to the binning approach,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3854Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams however the approach was refined/tuned according to results and it is believed that new results would require additional refinement/tuning of the binning approach. Additional concerns are that the EPA protocol assumes the only nitrogen loss is through denitrification and that stream losses are modeled as first order decay. EPA's recognition that "some fraction of nitrogen transported in streams is retained or assimilated before reaching estuarine waters help ensure that the DPVs are not overprotective of downstream use in any particular estuary" is not true if loss rates used are not realistic. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.111

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(6)(b)(iv) EPA Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) Comment: In general, it is believed that DPVs are not required because IPVs are inherently protective of downstream effects (FDEP, 2010). Significantly more research needs to be done on in-stream nutrient removal and settling for DPVs to be used. Influences from sediment and additional hydrodynamics need to be incorporated into this analysis.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3855Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.112

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation III.C(6)(b)(v) Application of DPVs for Downstream Estuary Protection Statement:EPA requests comment on whether these adjustments should be allowed to occur in the implementation of the reallocation process rather than as a SSAC. Comment: These adjustments should be allowed to occur during a SSAC. Note that the system, as proposed, would likely result in an overwhelming number of requests for SSACs due to the overly conservative protocol which impairs many non- impaired WBIDs (i.e., significant Type I error). 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.113

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Statement: EPA requests comment on the DPV approach, the technical merit of the estimated protective loadings, and the technical merit of the method for calculating stream reach values. Comment: The SPARROW model application for DPVs needs to be abandoned. It is too coarse a model for this application. In terms of load estimation: As cited in the federal register: "TN load estimates explain 96% of the variation in observed loads from monitoring sites across the region with no spatial bias at Florida sites." This statement is misleading in that the 0.96 correlation coefficient occurred for Models A, B, and C, indicating that the chosen Model B (which incorporates a regional scale hydrologic framework) does not increase model prediction of instream/downstream effect based on this correlation coefficient. Due to the complexities of the systems to be modeled and the nonlinear variations seen in the measured data, only weak correlations are typically shown in all of the TSD materials and therefore any statement such as "...estimates 96% of the variation..." raises a significant red flag. In reading through the SPARROW manual, it seems observed TN flux is created by "The extrapolation of infrequently sampled water-quality data and removal of trend dictates the specification of a model of flux." Therefore the SPARROW model extrapolates measured TN data to measured USGS flows. This extrapolation relies on a strong correlation between flow and TN which is not seen in the data. As explained in (Hoos and McMahon, 2009) the "mean annual load was estimated as the product of daily streamflow and estimated daily concentration, which was modeled from nutrient water-quality data and streamflow data." [underline

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3856Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams added]. Therefore the observed flux, or load, is not data. In an example application in the Users Manual, it states: "Flux estimates were based on a simple model in which the logarithm of concentration is regressed on the logarithm of contemporaneous flow, a time trend, and a sine and cosine term. The method of adjusted maximum likelihood (Cohn, Gilroy, and others, 1992) was used to accommodate stations with censored data. All available flow and water-quality data between the period 1970 and 2000 were used at each station. As a result of NASQAN program changes, however, the number of observations and exact periods of record varied considerably across stations. An estimate of flux was made only if a station had at least 15 water-quality observations." [underline added] The above excerpt seems to claim that a 30 year flux time series can be created using only 15 water- quality observations. This seems extremely questionable and more information is needed on the current SPARROW application in creating "observed" loads. Additionally, Hoos and McMahon (2009) further explain that the predicted load includes may variables and coefficients and also includes "vectors of measured stream and reservoir variables, respectively (examples include stream-water depth or velocity and reservoir areal hydraulic loading);" [underline added]. A strong correlation between observed and predicted loads is not unexpected when measured stream flow (or associated parameters such as velocity) factors into both equations. The predicted load equation also benefits from numerous coefficients "estimated by the model" As explained the SPARROW user manual: "the R-square and Adj R-Sq statistic for a SPARROW model tend to be large (greater than 0.6) partly because of the fact that much of the variation in the dependent variable is associated with the size (drainage area) of the basin upstream from the monitored reach, and drainage area in turn is typically highly correlated with contaminant source variables. A high R-square therefore does not necessarily indicate a good model fit." [underline added] In reviewing the SPARROW Users Manual, a few other issues related to its application for DPV estimation are also potentially concerning. In reference to using a hypothetical base year (point) in time: "By this, it is not meant that the record must be representative of the hydrologic conditions in the base year: the SPARROW model is estimated using mean estimates of water quality with the intention of removing variations due to hydrologic conditions. " The removal of varying hydrologic conditions (low flow, high flow, 7Q10, etc.) in predicting water quality is an unorthodox approach and essentially all of the TSD documentation shows significant but weak correlations between stressor and response variables. Therefore a steadystate model based on nonlinear regression analysis is also not likely applicable. Modeling of the long-term means also limits the models ability to simulate alternative scenarios (e.g., varying loads, flows, wet-events, dry-events, etc.) In terms of alternatives modeling, the SPARROW Users Manual states: "It should also be noted that if the SPARROW model is run in prediction mode for purposes of simulating water-quality conditions under alternative management scenarios, then it is not appropriate to condition the predictions on measured

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3857Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams flux at monitored reaches. The measured flux is consistent with management actions actually taken. As such, the conditioning of predictions on measured flux would not incorporate the changes in water quality associated with the alternative management scenario. For purposes of comparison, therefore, it is reasonable to obtain predictions for both existing conditions and alternative management scenarios that are not conditioned on measured flux."This seems to indicate that modeling alternative management scenarios (which is a common task for deterministic timevarying models such as WASP, HSPF, etc. and even steady-state deterministic models such as BASINS) cannot be easily accomplished with SPARROW due to its reliance on equations and coefficients fitted only to existing conditions. Therefore its use to establish "background loads" cannot be easily verified. In EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.2, the SPARROW model is used to create current loads and background loads. It is important to note that several Florida estuaries would be inappropriate as targets for SPARROW modeling. Specifically, several estuaries of the southern peninsula, such as Florida Bay, Whitewater Bay and Rookery Bay, are not amenable to analysis by the SPARROW watershed model. Large interaction of surface flows with groundwater flows, the lack of mass flow or well-constrained point-source input, and multiple ungauged inputs would render such modeling ineffective (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010). EPA is apparently aware of weaknesses in the SPARROW model because 7 out of 23 estuaries were not modeled for the proposed DPV rules. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.114

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Statement: EPA also requests comment on other scientifically defensible approaches for ensuring protection of designated uses in estuaries. Comment: Significantly more research needs to be done on in-stream nutrient removal and settling for DPVs to be used. Influences from sediment and additional hydrodynamics need to be incorporated into this analysis. WBIDs were originally developed based on watersheds and it is believed that the effort gone into delineating these areas factored in downstream effects. Additionally, FDEP has provided several analyses to defend its assertion that IPVs are inherently protective of downstream estuaries (FDEP, 2010). 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.115

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation Statement: EPA requests comments and welcomes thorough evaluation on the technical and scientific basis of these proposed

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3858Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams downstream protection values as part of the broader comment and evaluation process that this proposal initiates. Comment: The federal register TSD EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.2 found "ample evidence is available to suggest that Florida's estuaries are, in general, not in good ecological condition. The National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment (NEEA) Update (Bricker et al. 2007)." ATM reviewed this report and the SPARROW model was cited in the Bricker report as evidence for impaired estuaries. This is a circular reference and should not be cited as a reason to develop DPVs with the SPARROW model. The "ample evidence" is also questionable as it seems like the Bricker document was developed based primarily on subjective opinions. Another interesting comment found in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0165.1 states that: "ANERR staff are actually more concerned over potential decreases in nutrients (from diversion of upstream waters) than increases in nutrients (ANERR, 2009), since nutrient decreases would negatively affect the currently healthy community structure and function, as well as productivity of the bay (Putland, 2005)." 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.116

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation In general, more WBID-by-WBID analysis is suggested. Estuaries are typically relatively complex systems that deserve an individual analysis. A good example of this is the Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) for Tampa Bay, which has been incrementally improving water quality within Tampa Bay for decades. The NMC was developed as a reaction to the degrading water quality of Tampa Bay. In contrast, EPA is striving to be proactive in identifying waterways that are typically not known to be impacted. While this is a worthwhile effort, it must be applied carefully in order to reduce excessive Type I errors. The proposed protocols, especially the DPVs, are anticipated to result in too many "false positives" and many, many SSAC applications. 

# Comment ID 1782-1.001.023

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 Tampa Bay As explained in great detail in the comment letter submitted by the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium, water quality in the Tampa Bay estuary has improved dramatically since the 1970s, when almost 50% of the bay's seagrass populations died off as a result of insufficient light and poor water quality.[42] Thanks to efforts of stakeholders in Tampa Bay area, the once nutrient degraded reaches of Tampa Bay now support 30,000 acres of seagrass - more than at any time measured since the 1950s.[43]

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3859Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

[42] 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 4, 2010), available at http://www.tbeptech.org/attachments/074_FINAL_NMC_Response_NNC_03082010.pdf

. [43] Id. In August 2009, the State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group -- a group that included the Director of EPA's Office of Science and Technology -- noted these significant achievements in Tampa Bay. State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Force, An Urgent Call to Action, 11 (August 2009), available at www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/nitgreport.pdf

. 

# Comment ID 1785-1.001.028

Author Name: Hall T. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners Southwest Florida The EPA publication of the Rule acknowledges the agency was unable to set nutrient standards at the levels where water bodies actually exhibit negative responses to nutrient pollution. Instead, the EPA utilized a broad statistical method, the United States Geological Survey' (USGS) SPARROW model, to establish large-scale, regional criteria. As the USGS has acknowledged, the SPARROW model does not work on a regional scale for water bodies with significant ground water influence. Therefore, Lee County supports EPA's decision to delay finalizing promulgation of the "Downstream Protection Values" related to estuary protection to the 2011 "Estuary and Coastal Rulemaking." This additional time should allow for a more science-based, and site specific, approach. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.037

Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior The approach to protection of downstream estuaries requires clarification. The SAGT-SPARROW regional watershed model should be described in enough detail for the reader to understand EPA's points. Specifically, the discussion of source classes versus sources is not clear without information on the sources within each class, and the concept of implicit accounting for measured loadings requires explanation. Also, the paragraph explaining the "atmospheric" source class is opaque, a condition that calls for a better explanation of the model. Without more explanation, we recommend that the paragraph on the "atmospheric" source class be deleted. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.038

Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3860Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The diagram of DPV derivation on page 4200 of the Federal Register appears to be incorrect. While units are not specified (even in the accompanying text), a load is presumed to have units of mass/time. Dividing by average stream flow yields mass/volume, or the DPV concentration. In the diagram, and in the accompanying text, the DPV concentration is divided by the fraction delivered to develop DPV concentrations in other reaches. This appears to be incorrect. The DPV concentration must be the same for all reaches, otherwise the total protective load will change. If reaches are to be assigned different concentrations, it must be based on apportioning the total protective load by reach, followed by dividing the apportioned load by the average stream flow in each reach. 

# Comment ID 1794-1.001.039

Author Name: Taylor W. Organization: US Department of the Interior EPA explains the general approach to setting the protective TN load: first bound the protective load by the background and current loads, then "reduce the range of possible protective loading values by considering additional evidence." The additional evidence is existing FL TMDLs, which call for TN loading reductions of 3% to 63%, with a median of 38%. There were also unspecified TN reductions from other areas of the country. EPA then set the criterion as a reduction of current TN load by one half the anthropogenic contribution. This reduces current loading by an average of 25%. While this is an explanation, it falls short of a justification. We recommend that EPA justify the criterion selection quantitatively. Possibilities include the use of theoretical (stoichiometric) and empirical relationships between TN and response variables. 

# Comment ID 1798-1.001.009

Author Name: Wessell R. Organization: Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation We support the decision to take more time to establish the Downstream Protective Values (DPV) until the Estuary and Coastal Rulemaking effort is conducted in 2011. 

# Comment ID 1801-1.001.035

Author Name: Green III K. Organization: St. Johns River Water Management District 3. Downstream Protection of Estuaries - proposed method produces unrealistically low numeric nutrient criteria ­ Although the District recognizes that EPA has decided to delay the promulgation of downstream protective values for estuarine waters, the District proffers the following comments in order to more fully inform EPA in its continuing deliberations.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3861Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams EPA acknowledges the limitations of the SPARROW model in its application to the "... complex hydrology..."of Florida. This awareness led EPA to decide not to apply the model to 10 Florida estuaries. The District contends, based on a review of the model and its application to the Indian River Lagoon basin, that the USGS-developed SPARROW model should not have been applied to the lagoonal estuaries in northeast Florida (Tolomato R. estuary south through the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) system, from St. Johns County through Martin County). These estuarine watersheds are comprised of a similar "complex hydrology" - flat topography with diffuse runoff, small and numerous drainages, many of which are ungaged. Scavia and Liu (2009) do not recommend using the SPARROW model in Florida because the coarse-scale (1:500,000) hydrography in the model is not well-suited to the flat, complex hydrography found in most of the state. Moreover, USGS researchers (Hoos and McMahon 2009) caution the model's application for the same reason unless a "... finer resolution of the stream networks is applied that allows inclusion in the calibration set of monitoring sites on smaller streams." EPA explains in their SPARROW calibration assessment that the model can explain 96% of the variation in observed loads in Florida overall. That statistic is misleading given the fact that for many estuarine systems (especially on the east coast of the state), most drainages are ungaged. Thus, observed loads are quite sparse geographically within and across many estuarine systems, unlike some of the large river-dominated estuaries in the Panhandle and others along the eastern Gulf Coast. For the IRL watershed, application of the SPARROW model is inappropriate or inadequate. For example, the District found a major error in EPA's delineation of the IRL watershed and, thus, a very significant underestimation of the current nutrient loadings to the IRL [40% less than the District- estimated loadings using calibrated watershed models: Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF) and the Pollutant Load Screening Model (PLSM)]. Consequently, EPA's estimated DPVs for the IRL watershed are inappropriately low for most of the watershed's tributary streams. For the IRL system, the proposed 90.1 - 100% assurance DPV for TN is 0.69 mg L-1. The annual median TN concentrations in the Banana River and northern IRL segments, at times when TMDL seagrass depth-limits targets were met, ranged from 0.88 to 1.3 mg L-1. These concentrations were found in the estuary itself; so presumably, "protective" concentrations in tributary streams would be comparable, perhaps slightly higher (allowing for in-estuary dilution, assimilation, sedimentation, and denitrification). In another example, there were several recent years (2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007) when seagrass depth limits in the Vero Beach reach met or exceeded 90% of the depth-limit target. During those times, median TN concentrations in Vero Beach's tributaries (canals), just upstream of their outflow to the IRL, ranged from 0.89 to 1.0 mg/L, indicating that the proposed criteria of 0.69 mg L-1 up to 0.87 mg L-1 (70.1 - 80% assurance) are unnecessarily low. EPA states that it will consider site-specific analyses as alternative DPVs under the SSAC process, particularly as it relates to established nutrient TMDLs approved by EPA and FDEP. Considering TMD based DPVs is very importantand is strongly encouraged, but it should not require a SSAC process to do so. A SSAC process for considering TMDLbased criteria will invite unnecessary stakeholder frustration, conflict, and cost. With respect to the nutrient TMDLs that have been accepted at both the state and federal levels; it is reasonable and appropriate to accept them as nutrient criteria as well. The District suggests that the 26 major estuaries of Florida deserve protective nutrient criteria established by methods employing site-specific data, or Florida-specific empirical models, or both. The estuaries are not as numerous as the thousands of Florida lakes and freshwater streams. Most, if not all estuaries, have regional and national significance. A

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3862Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams rigorous, site-specific understanding of each estuary should form the basis for establishment of site-specific numeric nutrient criteria. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.040

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Streams [Section III.C(6)(b)] – Estuarine DPVs
1. EPAs determination, as outlined in its letter of March 17, 2010, to delay finalizing promulgation of the "downstream protection values," or DPVs, for estuaries is acknowledged and appreciated. 2. EPA is encouraged to work closely with FDEP, and especially local groups engaged in nutrient management, to establish appropriate protective loads for Florida’s estuaries. This is especially true relative to working with the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium in establishing values for Tampa Bay and the Tampa Bay tributaries. The following presents comments on the methodology as proposed. 3. The methodology utilized in the development of protective loadings for the estuaries is unrealistic and did not take advantage of the extensive efforts being conducted by FDEP and other groups around the State (specific example of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Consortium). Additionally, there were numerous TMDLs approved by EPA that were not considered in the assessment of the protective load for the estuarine segments. EPA makes the inappropriate assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries. In Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses serve as the desired endpoint to assess water quality management activities aimed at controlling nutrient loadings. Seagrass coverage has increased in each of these systems since the 1980s, indicating the success of watershed management actions. Therefore, it is difficult to justify additional load reductions where empirical data show such responses to management actions specifically developed to address water quality problems. 4. The blanket methodology utilized to define the protective loads for all of the estuaries targeted, was unrealistic and not reflective of true conditions. The determination of appropriate protective loads needs to be on an estuary by estuary basis and reflective of actual biological response measured within the system. It is recommended that EPA utilize the extensive data available throughout the state being developed by various groups as well as TMDLs already approved and undergoing BMAP development. It is not reasonable for EPA to superceede the extensive amount of work that has gone on in many estuaries throughout Florida, especially where BMAPs or Reasonable Assurance (RA) plans have been developed and are being implemented with measureable resulting improvements. 5. The SPARROW model is too coarse, was calibrated to a very small data set, and is not an accurate representation of the conditions within Florida’s estuaries and their tributaries. This essentially represents several steps backward in the TMDL efforts around the State on a WBID-by-WBID basis that FDEP and other agencies within Florida have been working on. 6. Valigura et al. (2000) conducted a preliminary comparison of SPARROW-derived estimates on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts and concluded that while SPARROW accurately predicted the mean loading to the estuaries as a group, “it did a poor job of predicting the load to any one particular estuary...” (EPA-HQ-OW-2009¬0596-0140) 7. The determination of delivery ratios from upstream segments did not account for numerous key factors that may account for losses and were therefore unrealistic. 8. The current application of SPARROW has already resulted in the omission of 7 out of 23 estuaries (see Federal

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3863Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Register) due to model limitations related to canals, lack of data, etc. 9. The EPA method assumes that estuaries are not meeting their current uses and that current loads are at or above protective TN loads. This is not an appropriate assumption for all waterbodies within the State. For example, extensive work done by the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Consortium (TBNC) has shown that existing loads are protective of the designated uses as defined based upon Seagrass targets. Extensive efforts have gone into the development of these loading numbers and the establishment of a Reasonable Assurance Plan to implement the program. EPA promulgation of the NNC as outlined herein, would negate the extensive and peer reviewed process undergone by the TBNC which has received review and positive feedback by EPA. 10. Application of the SPARROW model does not incorporate the best available information at local scales, using only 1:500,000-scale hydrography and estimated loads not always based on all available data for a watershed. A more appropriate application would utilize information already available, as for loadings to Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and more refined hydrography to calibrate the model. It is important to understand, however, that the model is used only because of the EPA assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries, and thus some method is used to derive protective loads. For those estuaries with empirical data indicating that protective loads are not being exceeded, and with technically sound and defensible estimates of what the protective loads are, application of SPARROW is not only superfluous but wasteful of resources as well.


# Comment ID 1805-3.001.120

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(6) Protection of Downstream Lakes and Estuaries Statement: Rather, the proposed values represent the output of a systematic and scientific approach that may be generally applicable to all flowing waters in Florida that terminate in estuaries for the purpose of ensuring the protection of downstream estuaries. EPA is interested in obtaining feedback at this time on this systematic and scientific approach. Comment: It is premature to propose DPVs prior to finalization of estuarine values. EPA states: “these proposed nitrogen downstream protection values are based on substantial data, thorough scientific analysis, and extensive technical evaluation.” The estuarine DPV approach seems to have only relied on the SPARROW model and does not represent the ‘weight-of-evidence’ approach favored by EPA. EPA states: “the proposed values represent the output of a systematic and scientific approach that may be generally applicable to all flowing waters in Florida that terminate in estuaries for the purpose of ensuring the protection of downstream estuaries.” ATM disagrees with this statement and EPA did not make use of the wealth of data and analyses available to them via FDEP. The issuance of a NODA (notice of data availability) is beneficial.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3864Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1805-3.001.124

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(6)(b) Downstream Protection of Estuaries III.C(6)(b)(i) Overview Statement: The remaining discussion focuses on TN, for which EPA has already computed DPVs. The approach for computing DPVs for TP from estimates of the protective TP load is expected to be essentially the same as for TN. However, there is some question as to whether the same approach used to determine the protective TN load will also apply to TP. EPA requests comment on this issue. Comment: In general, it is believed that DPVs are not required because IPVs are inherently protective of downstream effects (FDEP, 2010). Significantly more research needs to be done on in-stream nutrient removal and settling for DPVs to be used. Influences from sediment and additional hydrodynamics need to be incorporated into this analysis. WBIDs were originally developed based on watersheds and it is believed that the effort gone into delineating these areas factored in downstream effects. It is noted that FDEP has cited two examples (Steinhatchee and Waccasassa basins) illustrating an apparent downstream additive effect of TN. Nonetheless, there are many other systems where this additive effect simply isn’t seen. This generally implies that downstream WBIDs are more likely to be impaired than upstream WBIDs. A result of this implication is the extremely low TN DPV values suggested by EPA in comparison to IPVs for the same WBIDs. Many of the proposed TN DPVs are simply unattainable under any scenario, including “natural” or “background” conditions. If DPVs are believed to be necessary by EPA, the establishment of TN and TP values should be performed in a similar manner. Due to the fact that most estuaries are TN limited and that many of the incoming streams also exhibit TN limited characteristics, it is believed that the initial effort should be devoted to TN (which the EPA has done). Despite the predominance of TN limited estuaries, the development of TP DPVs is also needed and a similar method would provide consistency. EPA did not calculate DPVs for 7 large estuary systems due to “requisite information related to TN loading from the highly managed canals and waterways cannot be derived from SAGT– SPARROW..” Therefore the current SPARROW method shows no consistency for TN alone and questions it use. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.125

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3865Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(6)(b)(ii) EPA Approach to Estimating Protective Nitrogen Loads for Estuaries Statement: EPA requests comment on its use of the SPARROW model to derive protective loads for downstream estuaries, as well as data and analyses that would support alternate methods of deriving downstream loads, or alternate methods of ensuring protection of designated uses in estuaries. Comment: The use of the SPARROW model should be abandoned for determining protective TN or TP DPVs. The SPARROW model seems to be providing the entire basis in establishing estuarine DPV’s, which seems contrary to the ‘weight of evidence’ approach utilized for other water body NNCs. Additionally, not enough information is provided about the SPARROW modeling approach. Several pre-processing tools such as ‘Fluxmaster’ and ‘ESTIMATOR’ are used and little to no information is provided. In general, it seems like inputs to the model have been massaged significantly (e.g., detrended, regressed, averaged, natural logged, etc.) and more information needs to be provided. Time-scales of associated inputs would also help to understand model processes. For example, the modeling is ‘hypothetically’ run for 2002, however flows for this modeling exercise are a detrended longterm average from 1974-2004. In several cases, the long-term average flow is approximately is at least 2 times as large as the measured 2002 flows. Valigura et al. (2000) conducted a preliminary comparison of SPARROW-derived estimates with independently derived estimates of N loading to 97 estuaries on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the U.S. Based on that comparison Valigura et al. (2000) concluded that while “SPARROW accurately predicted it did a poor job of predicting the load to any one particular estuary...”(OW-2009-0596-0140.pdf) Additionally, the SPARROW was modeled for only 16 out of 23 estuaries due to lack of loading data and areas with significant amounts of canals; which is an example of its limited application potential. According to the SPARROW User manual, it also describes it limitations in modeling alternative scenarios due the model being fit to existing conditions. Limited Calibration Data Additionally, as stated in the modeling report, only 331 water stations were used for calibration for the entire model domain (including TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, LA). It is noted that some available stations have longer and arguably higher quality data sets, however a methodology needs to be presented to justify data inclusion/omission and to verify that the modelers avoided ‘cherry¬picking’ favorable stations. The Hoos study also cites that an additional “306 sites were located on tributaries too small to be represented in the relatively coarse 1 : 500 000 ERF1 2.” This implies that approximately 1⁄2 of all instream water quality data is unusable for this SPARROW model application. The exclusion of such a significant number of data stations and streams needs to be justified with convergence or sensitivity testing (or similar technique). Original comment letter contains additional information in Figure 8: Stations That Were Not Used for Model Calibration

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3866Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams and Figure 9: Comparison of SPARROW model with FDEP stream network. See original comment letter. Additional Concerns:

• Current loadings represent the upper bound which assumes the system is impaired or at the edge of impairment. This is not necessarily a good assumption as there are estuaries that are not listed.

• EPA states that they used TMDLs and PLRGs as additional information. There is no evidence of this.

• The intercomparison of load reductions and the assumption that there is some standard reduction levels that apply around the state is a very poor assumption. One can’t extrapolate one estuary to another, also local load difference is based upon different areas of estuaries

• “EPA computed the protective TN load by reducing the current TN load by one half of the anthropogenic contribution to that load” – This seems arbitrary and capricious.


# Comment ID 1805-3.001.126

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(6)(b)(iii) Computing Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) Statement: EPA requests comment on the binning approach for calculating DPVs, which allows for a relatively simple table of DPVs to be presented as compared to using the actual estimate of fraction TN delivered to calculate a DPV unique to each WBID using formula (1), above. Comment: The binning approach seems reasonable in theory; however the results from the SPARROW application are not reasonable. DPVs are too extreme and unrealistically low. It is noted that this is not due to the binning approach, however the approach was refined/tuned according to results and it is believed that new results would require additional refinement/tuning of the binning approach. Additional concerns are that the EPA protocol assumes the only nitrogen loss is through denitrification and that stream losses are modeled as first order decay. EPA’s recognition that “some fraction of nitrogen transported in streams is retained or assimilated before reaching estuarine waters help ensure that the DPVs are not overprotective of downstream use in any particular estuary” is not true if loss rates used are not realistic.



# Comment ID 1805-3.001.127

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3867Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams III.C(6)(b)(iv) EPA Downstream Protection Values (DPVs) Comment: In general, it is believed that DPVs are not required because IPVs are inherently protective of downstream effects (FDEP, 2010). Significantly more research needs to be done on in-stream nutrient removal and settling for DPVs to be used. Influences from sediment and additional hydrodynamics need to be incorporated into this analysis. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.128

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County III.C(6)(b)(v) Application of DPVs for Downstream Estuary Protection Statement: EPA requests comment on whether these adjustments should be allowed to occur in the implementation of the re-allocation process rather than as a SSAC. Comment: These adjustments should be allowed to occur during a SSAC. Note that the system, as proposed, would likely result in an overwhelming number of requests for SSACs due to the overly conservative protocol which impairs many non-impaired WBIDs (i.e., significant Type I error). 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.129

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Statement: EPA requests comment on the DPV approach, the technical merit of the estimated protective loadings, and the technical merit of the method for calculating stream reach values. Comment: The SPARROW model application for DPVs needs to be abandoned. It is too coarse a model for this application. In terms of load estimation: As cited in the federal register: “TN load estimates explain 96% of the variation in observed loads from monitoring sites across the region with no spatial bias at Florida sites.” This statement is misleading in that the 0.96 correlation coefficient occurred for Models A, B, and C, indicating that the chosen Model B (which incorporates a regional scale hydrologic framework) does not increase model prediction of instream/downstream effect based on this correlation coefficient. Due to the complexities of the systems to be modeled and the nonlinear variations seen in the measured data, only weak correlations are typically shown in all of the TSD materials and therefore any statement such as “...estimates 96% of the variation...” raises a significant red flag. In reading through the SPARROW manual, it seems observed TN flux is created by “The extrapolation of infrequently

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3868Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams sampled water-quality data and removal of trend dictates the specification of a model of flux.” Therefore the SPARROW model extrapolates measured TN data to measured USGS flows. This extrapolation relies on a strong correlation between flow and TN which is not seen in the data. As explained in (Hoos and McMahon, 2009) the “mean annual load was estimated as the product of daily streamflow and estimated daily concentration, which was modeled from nutrient water-quality data and streamflow data.” [underline added]. Therefore the observed flux, or load, is not data. In an example application in the Users Manual, it states: “Flux estimates were based on a simple model in which the logarithm of concentration is regressed on the logarithm of contemporaneous flow, a time trend, and a sine and cosine term. The method of adjusted maximum likelihood (Cohn, Gilroy, and others, 1992) was used to accommodate stations with censored data. All available flow and water-quality data between the period 1970 and 2000 were used at each station. As a result of NASQAN program changes, however, the number of observations and exact periods of record varied considerably across stations. An estimate of flux was made only if a station had at least 15 water-quality observations.” [underline added] The above excerpt seems to claim that a 30 year flux time series can be created using only 15 water-quality observations. This seems extremely questionable and more information is needed on the current SPARROW application in creating “observed” loads. Additionally, Hoos and McMahon (2009) further explain that the predicted load includes may variables and coefficients and also includes “vectors of measured stream and reservoir variables, respectively (examples include stream-water depth or velocity and reservoir areal hydraulic loading);” [underline added]. A strong correlation between observed and predicted loads is not unexpected when measured stream flow (or associated parameters such as velocity) factors into both equations. The predicted load equation also benefits from numerous coefficients “estimated by the model” As explained the SPARROW user manual: “the R-square and Adj R-Sq statistic for a SPARROW model tend to be large (greater than 0.6) partly because of the fact that much of the variation in the dependent variable is associated with the size (drainage area) of the basin upstream from the monitored reach, and drainage area in turn is typically highly correlated with contaminant source variables. A high R-square therefore does not necessarily indicate a good model fit.” [underline added] In reviewing the SPARROW Users Manual, a few other issues related to its application for DPV estimation are also potentially concerning. In reference to using a hypothetical base year (point) in time: “By this, it is not meant that the record must be representative of the hydrologic conditions in the base year: the SPARROW model is estimated using mean estimates of water quality with the intention of removing variations due to hydrologic conditions. “ The removal of varying hydrologic conditions (low flow, high flow, 7Q10, etc.) in predicting water quality is an unorthodox approach and essentially all of the TSD documentation shows significant but weak correlations between stressor and response variables. Therefore a steady-state model based on nonlinear regression analysis is also not

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3869Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams likely applicable. Modeling of the long-term means also limits the models ability to simulate alternative scenarios (e.g., varying loads, flows, wet-events, dry-events, etc.) In terms of alternatives modeling, the SPARROW Users Manual states: “It should also be noted that if the SPARROW model is run in prediction mode for purposes of simulating water-quality conditions under alternative management scenarios, then it is not appropriate to condition the predictions on measured flux at monitored reaches. The measured flux is consistent with management actions actually taken. As such, the conditioning of predictions on measured flux would not incorporate the changes in water quality associated with the alternative management scenario. For purposes of comparison, therefore, it is reasonable to obtain predictions for both existing conditions and alternative management scenarios that are not conditioned on measured flux.”This seems to indicate that modeling alternative management scenarios (which is a common task for deterministic timevarying models such as WASP, HSPF, etc. and even steady-state deterministic models such as BASINS) cannot be easily accomplished with SPARROW due to its reliance on equations and coefficients fitted only to existing conditions. Therefore its use to establish “background loads” cannot be easily verified. In EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.2, the SPARROW model is used to create current loads and background loads. It is important to note that several Florida estuaries would be inappropriate as targets for SPARROW modeling. Specifically, several estuaries of the southern peninsula, such as Florida Bay, Whitewater Bay and Rookery Bay, are not amenable to analysis by the SPARROW watershed model. Large interaction of surface flows with groundwater flows, the lack of mass flow or well-constrained point-source input, and multiple ungauged inputs would render such modeling ineffective (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0010). EPA is apparently aware of weaknesses in the SPARROW model because 7 out of 23 estuaries were not modeled for the proposed DPV rules. 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.130

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County Statement: EPA also requests comment on other scientifically defensible approaches for ensuring protection of designated uses in estuaries. Comment: Significantly more research needs to be done on in-stream nutrient removal and settling for DPVs to be used. Influences from sediment and additional hydrodynamics need to be incorporated into this analysis. WBIDs were originally developed based on watersheds and it is believed that the effort gone into delineating these areas factored in downstream effects. Additionally, FDEP has provided several analyses to defend its assertion that IPVs are inherently protective of downstream estuaries (FDEP, 2010). 

# Comment ID 1805-3.001.131

Author Name: Gallagher J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3870Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Pasco County Statement: EPA requests comments and welcomes thorough evaluation on the technical and scientific basis of these proposed downstream protection values as part of the broader comment and evaluation process that this proposal initiates. Comment: The federal register TSD EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0003.2 found “ample evidence is available to suggest that Florida’s estuaries are, in general, not in good ecological condition. The National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment (NEEA) Update (Bricker et al. 2007).” ATM reviewed this report and the SPARROW model was cited in the Bricker report as evidence for impaired estuaries. This is a circular reference and should not be cited as a reason to develop DPVs with the SPARROW model. The “ample evidence” is also questionable as it seems like the Bricker document was developed based primarily on subjective opinions. Another interesting comment found in EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0165.1 states that: “ANERR staff are actually more concerned over potential decreases in nutrients (from diversion of upstream waters) than increases in nutrients (ANERR, 2009), since nutrient decreases would negatively affect the currently healthy community structure and function, as well as productivity of the bay (Putland, 2005).” In general, more WBID-by-WBID analysis is suggested. Estuaries are typically relatively complex systems that deserve an individual analysis. A good example of this is the Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) for Tampa Bay, which has been incrementally improving water quality within Tampa Bay for decades. The NMC was developed as a reaction to the degrading water quality of Tampa Bay. In contrast, EPA is striving to be proactive in identifying waterways that are typically not known to be impacted. While this is a worthwhile effort, it must be applied carefully in order to reduce excessive Type I errors. The proposed protocols, especially the DPVs, are anticipated to result in too many “false positives” and many, many SSAC applications.



# Comment ID 1811-1.001.006

Author Name: Carpinone P. Organization: Tampa Electric Company EPA's use of the USGS SPARROW model to set downstream protective values for Florida's freshwaters is inappropriate because the SPARROW model cannot take into account all nutrient sources for specific smaller water bodies. EPA's use of this model resulted in some downstream protective values that are lower than natural background, again not taking into account the existing condition of the downstream water body. The SPARROW model is designed to be used on a regional basis, not for specific water bodies. EPA should abandon the use of the SPARROW model for water bodies that have existing nutrient management plans or models, such as the Tampa Bay Estuary Program's Nitrogen Management Consortium's nitrogen allocations, and use water body-specific data to set downstream protective values.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3871Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1813-1.001.008

Author Name: Britt M. Organization: Natural Resources Division, City of Winter Haven Comments from the City of Winter Haven Wastewater Treatment Staff: The SPARROW model is inappropriate for the state of Florida. Modelers with the U.S. Geological Survey and EPA's own Science Advisory committee have express concerns over its use in determining impairments in Florida. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.034

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 23 . The SPARROW model used by USEPA to develop downstream protective values is regional in nature and should not be used to generate nutrient criteria for individual estuaries (page 4197, proposed rule). The SPARROW model is tailored to examine landscape characteristics that influence delivery of nitrogen from sources within watersheds in the southeastern United States, utilizing coefficients that are based on regional data. The coefficients/load estimates that have been developed and implemented in local programs within SWFWMD are based upon site-specific, local data and are therefore more appropriate for use. The SPARROW model, as proposed, is based on a load normalized to the hydrologic conditions experienced in 2002 and thus does not appropriately account for temporally variable ecosystem responses to nutrient loads and hydrologic residence times . Extensive scientific research conducted by the consortiums, SWFWMD, and other federal and state regulators has indicated a clear need to establish protective nutrient loads for each major segment of a particular bay or estuary. The use of the SPARROW model, as proposed, to develop a single protective nutrient load for each bay or estuary is inappropriate . This results in the proposed protective load for an estuary or bay being lower than the established natural conditions. The proposed SPARROW model, effectively, has not been calibrated for a small, specific area, such as the State of Florida or estuary watersheds . Therefore it should not be used as it currently exists to establish DPVs for streams. USEPA should use site-specific information to develop response-driven targets for downstream protective values. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.035

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 24. USEPA should use site-specific information to develop downstream protective values (page 4199, proposed rule). Florida estuaries vary greatly in size and biological attributes . To account for this variability, it is imperative that USEPA utilize readily available, scientifically robust (i .e ., peer-reviewed), sitespecific information to determine estuarine targets. These targets should be based on the quantitative stressor-response relationships (e.g., between ambient

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3872Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams water quality and light attenuation, and between nutrient loading and chlorophyll concentrations) identified by USEPA as the preferred method for establishing numeric nutrient criteria . Such methods have been utilized by the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium to establish criteria for all of the major segments of the Tampa Bay estuary, and are being employed by other programs for the same purpose, including by the Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor Estuary Programs. SWFWMD supports the approaches used by USEPA's partners, the Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor Estuary Programs, to determine responsedriven chlorophyll targets for delineated bay segments. The approach proposed by USEPA for estuaries fails to link criteria to an estuarine biological response. SWFWMD recommends that USEPA acknowledge existing TN and TP loads to Tampa Bay as Downstream Protective Loads in the final inland water criteria rule. Existing TN and TP loads to Tampa Bay support full aquatic life protection by providing a balance of adequate water clarity for healthy and expanding seagrass beds, and adequate phytoplankton production to support the bay's fish and wildlife populations. As the Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor Estuary Programs complete water quality targets, the rule criteria should also recognize these targets as Estuarine Nutrient Criteria. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.036

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 25 . USEPA should delay developing downstream protection values for estuaries and instead address them during the 2011 estuary and coastal criteria rulemaking process (page 4208, proposed rule). Due to the direct influence estuarine and coastal criteria have on the determination of downstream protection values, development should be delayed until the 2011 estuary and coastal rule making process . 

# Comment ID 1836.001.038

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 27 . USEPA should utilize available gauged flows to obtain load estimates instead of using estimates based on spatial extrapolation (page 4200, proposed rule). SWFWMD recommends that USEPA re-evaluate loads to estuaries with available gauged flow data from the US Geological Survey. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.039

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 28.The approach used by USEPA to estimate "background" total nitrogen loads for estuaries carries an unacceptably

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3873Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams high degree of uncertainty (page 4200, proposed rule). For example, Harper and Baker (2003) estimated TN concentrations of 0.703 mg/L in typical runoff from Undeveloped/Rangeland/Forest within the Lemon Bay watershed, which would be out of compliance with the proposed DPV for that watershed. This approach should be re-evaluated with an effort to increase the accuracy of background TN load estimates. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.040

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 29.The USEPA method for determining the "fraction delivered" needs to be reevaluated based on unaccounted for upstream losses of total nitrogen (page 4202, proposed rule). It is very important to accurately define/estimate instream attributes that moderate/attenuate TN loss (page 4200, proposed rule) . Incorporating other attributes into the model such as uptake by submersed aquatic vegetation, denitrification, and settling would improve model estimates for TN loss. Long-term data from coastal spring-fed rivers and their estuaries indicate a high degree of variability in nitrogen removal within and among systems (Frazer et al . 2001 ; Frazer et al. 2006; Jacoby et al. 2009) . The relative contributions of assimilatory (uptake by autotrophs) and dissimilatory (denitrification) processes to nitrate variability in rivers, as well as the controls on these processes, are not well understood and are currently an active area of research (Heffernan and Cohen 2010). 

# Comment ID 1836.001.041

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 30. USEPA's "binning approach for calculating DPVs" should not be used because it is overly simplistic and overprotective (page 4203, proposed rule). Using gauged data from systems to develop estimates of the fraction of TN delivered is a more appropriate method for developing unique DPVs for each water body unit. 

# Comment ID 1836.001.042

Author Name: Moore D. Organization: Southwest Florida Water Management District 31 . Re-allocation and adjustments to downstream protection values based on nutrient attenuation should take place during implementation of the reallocation process rather than as part of the Site-Specific Alternative Criteria process (page 4208, proposed rule). If documented empirical or mechanistic modeling information is available from completed nutrient reduction BMP implementation projects (such as constructed treatment wetlands and other stormwater treatment systems), then the load reductions attributed to specific basins should be factored into the redistribution of protective loads for DPVs to account for permanent nutrient attenuation in these systems.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3874Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 1837-1.001.009

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS Administration, Inc., and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. doing business as PCS Phosphate- White Springs

• Development of estuary criteria should be predicated on a valid necessity determination. EPA has announced its intent, and FDEP has followed suit, to develop and promulgate numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries. Any such action, whether by EPA or FDEP, should be undertaken only if a valid necessity determination is made, using the scientifically defensible processes discussed in this and other comment letters, including recognition of limiting nutrients and biological confirmation of impairment or imbalance. EPA's proposal and, as we understand it, FDEP's work on estuarine criteria would link estuarine criteria to freshwater lakes and flowing waters through the application of the concept of protection of downstream waters. For that reason, no criteria should be adopted for fresh water until estuarine criteria are properly determined to be necessary and adopted if justified. 

# Comment ID 1837-1.001.011

Author Name: Brom M. Organization: PCS Administration, Inc., and White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. doing business as PCS Phosphate- White Springs PotashCorp would add to that general comment these specific comments: o On March 17, 2010 EPA informed FDEP "that the Agency has decided to delay finalizing promulgation of the "downstream protection values," or DPVs with respect to downstream estuary protection and to address this issue in the 2011 estuary and coastal rulemaking." PotashCorp does not believe that an adequate demonstration of necessity has been made for the DPVs or that sufficient analysis has been done to support them. PotashCorp reserves the right to comment on or challenge the DPVs if they are re-proposed. 

# Comment ID 1869-1.001.007

Author Name: Fumero J. Organization: Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley on behalf of Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc.

• It is inappropriate to use USGS's SPARROW model for region-wide standards. USGS stated that the SPARROW model is not intended for use in areas where there is significant input from groundwater. Within BSU's service area,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3875Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams many lakes and canals have a direct connection with the groundwater. The SPARROW model should not be applied to such water bodies because it is scientifically invalid. 

# Comment ID 1872.001.002

Author Name: Bond T. Organization: The instream nutrient criteria EPA is proposing is not stingent enough to ensure protection of aquatic life in downstream estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1875.001.003

Author Name: Barnett B. Organization: City Council, City of Naples The most significant 'criteria affecting the City will be the limits set for estuaries and coastal waters which are expected to be developed next year. We believe it is critical that those standards are also developed with methodology appropriate for each water body and provide a realistic economic benefit and ability for compliance. 

# Comment ID 1876.001.001

Author Name: Alderson M. Organization: Sarasota Bay Estuary Program The Sarasota Bay Estuary Program (SBEP) is pleased to provide the attached comments in response to the proposed "Water Quality Nutrient Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters". The SBEP fully supports the development of water quality criteria and strongly supports the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to establish these criteria. We request that the EPA work with the SBEP and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in developing appropriate criteria for Sarasota Bay. The SBEP and its partners have been following the EPA process and timeline on rule development for numeric nutrient criteria for Florida waters. The proposed rule assumes that the waters of Sarasota Bay are not meeting their designated uses and are exceeding the assimilative capacity. The information provided in the attached document, and forthcoming analyses to be provided to the FDEP in June, will demonstrate that Sarasota Bay is protective of full aquatic life support. The EPA has acknowledged that particular estuaries may have additional data and analyses to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3876Chapter 2 - Comment Documents help inform and determine what numeric nutrient criteria are necessary to protect those waters. The SBEP, through its technical advisory committee, has been developing numeric nutrient criteria specifically for Sarasota Bay and its associated watershed. Seagrass and chlorophyll a targets have been established and approved. Quantitative relationships among seagrasses, light, chlorophyll and nutrients are being developed. A locally based nutrient loading model (SIMPLE-Monthly) is being refined to provide nutrient load estimates for the entire watershed. The results of this work and recommendations for nutrient loads (and concentrations) will be provided to the EPA in June, 2010. The SBEP respectfully requests that the EPA consider the values recommended by the SBEP for Sarasota Bay when estuarine nutrient downstream protection values (DPVs) are promulgated. The SBEP also thanks the EPA for delaying final action on the promulgation of DPVs proposed for flowing waters until October 2011. Over $375 million dollars has been spent to date on capital improvement projects to manage surface water discharges of wastewater and stormwater to the Sarasota Bay estuary. These projects have resulted in steady improvements in water quality and habitat quality throughout the bay. This also demonstrates a clear commitment by the SBEP partners to protect water quality; those investments are paying dividends today. Sarasota Bay Estuary Program (SBEP) response to the EPA's Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters and Methodology for Deriving Downstream Protection Values for Sarasota Bay, FL These comments are provided for EPA's review and use in developing the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program's (SBEP) numeric nutrient criteria for Sarasota Bay. Additional comments and recommendations will be provided through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in June 2010. Background Sarasota Bay is a fifty mile long coastal lagoon on the southwest coast of Florida (Figure 1). It is comprised of one large bay segment (Big Sarasota Bay) and several smaller embayments including Palma Sola Bay in the north and a series of three contiguous embayments (Roberts Bay, Little Sarasota Bay, and Blackburn Bay) to the south. The Bay has four inlets or passes (Venice Inlet, Big Sarasota Pass, New Pass and Longboat Pass). The SBEP area is bounded to the north by Anna Maria Sound, which opens into Tampa Bay and to the south by Venice Inlet. There are numerous, small tidal creeks that enter the bay along the eastern shoreline, ranging in size from the largest (Phillippi Creek: drainage area of36,417 acres) to the smallest (Palma Sola Creek: drainage area of900 acres). The watershed is highly developed and consists of agricultural, residential, commercial and light industrial land uses. Circulation is primarily driven by tidal exchange with the Gulf of Mexico. Big Sarasota Bay circulation is forced by the tides at Anna Maria Sound, Longboat Pass, New Pass and Big Pass. Rivers and Streams

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3877Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Tidal circulation in Little Sarasota Bay is forced by tides at Venice Inlet and the Intracoastal Waterway running through the middle of the bay." The closing ofMidnight Pass in Little Sarasota Bay in 1983 permanently altered the circulation in the three lower embayments. History of Nutrient Management in Sarasota Bay Sarasota Bay was named an "Estuary of National Significance" in the Water Quality Act of 1987 and was formally designated as a National Estuary Program (NEP) in 1989. The Program's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), which provides specific actions to be implemented by the community to reduce pollutants (including nutrients) and restore lost habitat, was signed in 1995. In 2004, the SBEP became an independent State Agency with authority to oversee water quality management and protection. Sarasota Bay is a nitrogen limited system (Lowrey, 1992; FDEP, 2005). Ratios between total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) in Sarasota Bay are typically well below 10 (i.e., Lowrey, 1992), which is consistent with presumed nitrogen limitation. Roberts Bay (a segment of Sarasota Bay- see Figure 1) had a median TN:TP ratio of2.4, which also indicates strong nitrogen limitation of phytoplankton growth (FDEP, 2005). From its inception, the SBEP recognized that wastewater and stormwater were the primary sources of anthropogenic nitrogen input (the other source being atmospheric deposition) entering the bay. As such, wastewater treatment and reclamation and stormwater treatment and prevention became the two most important action items in the CCMP with the goal of reducing nitrogen inputs to the bay by 48%. Each of these action items contained a number of specific elements designed to reach this nutrient reduction goal (CCMP, 1995). Original comment letters contains additional information in Figure 1. Map of Sarasota Bay, its watershed and tributaries. See original comment letter. Through the cooperation of SBEP partners - local municipal and county governments, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - in implementing these action items, we have documented significant improvements in water quality and the resultant recovery of seagrass throughout the estuary over the past twenty years. The highlights of these improvements and recovery are:
1. Nitrogen loads- using the EPA approved Watershed Management Model- to Sarasota Bay have been reduced by 46% since 1988 (Tomasko et al., 2005). Author's note: recent estimates of TN load reduction using WMM approximate 64% (Tomasko et ai, 2009, Estuarine Research and Coastal Federation Conference, Portland Oregon) - this information has not been published.
2. As of 2008, seagrass acreage is 24% higher than 1950 acreage. (Figure 2).
3. Total seagrass acreage (2008) has increased 46% since 1988 (Figure 2).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3878Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

4. Continuous seagrass beds have increased 180% since 1988 (Figure 2).
5. Sarasota Bay is meeting designated uses with respect to nutrients. Bay scallops returned to Sarasota Bay seagrass beds in 2008. Fisheries data show high abundances of juvenile fish within seagrass beds in all bay segments (Serviss and Sauers, 2003). These findings support the attainment of full aquatic life support and use. Original comment letters contains additional information in Figure 2. Total seagrass cover (in acres) for Sarasota Bay. (SWFWMD, 2008). See original comment letter. Nitrogen Reduction Measures Declines in total nitrogen (TN) concentrations and loads are a result of extensive capital improvement projects undertaken by our partners ($375 million). Pollution reduction efforts have focused on three major tributaries and coastal areas: Phillippi Creek; Whitaker Bayou, and Manatee County (coastal wastewater seepage from agriculture reuse and Bowlees Creek). Phillippi Creek- South Bay Phillippi Creek drains 38% of the Sarasota Bay watershed. Annual TN concentrations averaged 3.12 mg/l from 1970 through 1988 (Figure 3). Nitrogen loading from Phillippi Creek has decreased approximately 60% since that time. These nitrogen load reductions are the result of three major infrastructure programs: 1) the construction of a major watershed stormwater treatment facility, 2) construction of an AWWTP, allowing for the removal of nineteen ineffective WWTPs, and 3) a major septic tank replacement program within the watershed. Original comment letters contains additional information in Figure 3. Nitrogen concentrations in Phillippi Creek, the main tributary to Sarasota Bay. (PBSJ, 2009). See original comment letter. Whitaker Bayou- Central Bay Whitaker Bayou, a tributary which was once the largest anthropogenic contributor of nitrogen to Sarasota Bay (Figure 4), has seen a ten-fold reduction in nitrogen loads due to the following improvements: 1) upgrading the City of Sarasota wastewater treatment plant to AWT standards, 2) expansion of the City's reclaimed water system, 3) converting remaining areas ofWhitaker Bayou from septic systems to central sewer, and 4) consolidation of the remaning WWTPs in the watershed. In 2016, the City is expected to cease discharging wastewater into Whitaker Bayou. Original comment letters contains additional information in Figure 4. Nitrogen loads to Whitaker Bayou. (Tomasko et al., 2005). See original comment letter. Manatee County- North Bay

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3879Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Manatee County's southwest regional WWTP (15 mgd) in north Sarasota Bay no longer discharges to the surface waters of the state. This was accomplished through 1) construction of a tail water recovery system in 1980, 2) permitting deep well injection of wastewater in 1991, and 3) wastewater reuse. No septic tanks or package plants remain in service in the Sarasota Bay watershed portion of Manatee County and there is no direct discharge of wastewater in the northern Bay. The Bowlees Creek watershed has seen significant water quality improvements as a result of several wastewater and stormwater treatment projects. First, Lake Brennan was expanded into a regional stormwater treatment system. Second, the stormwater drainage system at the Sarasota/Bradenton Airport was reconstructed utilizing modem water quality treatment technologies. Finally, sewer systems were replaced or upgraded in the lower portions of the watershed. Educational Programs The SBEP and partners have developed broad scale adult and in-school educational programs to promote pollution prevention and stewardship including: Florida Friendly Landscaping, Neighborhood Environmental Stewardship Teams and Water Wise initiatives. Local water use has been reduced to 80 gallons/per person/day. Florida Yards are required in all new development in approximately 80% ofthe watershed. Substantial public relations initiatives have been aimed at reducing water consumption and pollution abatement. Adoption of Local Fertilizer Ordinances Finally, Sarasota County and the Cities of Sarasota and Longboat Key recently adopted fertilizer ordinances which prohibit, among other things, fertilizer application during the summer (wet) months. This ordinance covers 80% of the Sarasota Bay watershed. Numeric Nutrient Criteria Setting in Sarasota Bay: Role of the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program For the past several years, the SBEP has been working with its partners to establish local water quality targets for the maintenance and restoration of seagrasses. To date, we have held a number of technical advisory committee meetings specifically to address this issue not only as a response to the impending criteria being developed by the EPA, but also for our partners and stakeholders as a framework to better understand the local response of seagrasses to nutrient loads so that we may better manage our estuary and its watershed. The specific role of the SBEP is to facilitate information exchange, modeling and technical data in support of EPA's rule making process. The SBEP supports third party review. We recognize the timeliness for completing this task as it relates to the ongoing development of numeric nutrient criteria for estuarine and coastal waters in Florida by the EPA and FDEP. Their Rivers and Streams

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3880Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams schedule calls for draft criteria to be established by January 2011. We have set an aggressive timetable in order to provide preliminary results by early June, 2010, for consideration by the EPA as site-specific criteria based on the best local data and knowledge. The basic strategy for establishing water quality and loading criteria follows that utilized over the past 13 years by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) and the Nitrogen Management Consortium. The paradigm depends upon knowledge of the quantitative relationships between light attenuation and ambient water quality (e.g., chlorophyll a) and between chlorophyll concentrations and nutrient loading. Empirical modeling techniques are being used to identify these quantitative relationships. The objectives of the project for setting nutrient criteria are:

• To develop a database of nutrient loads and concentrations for each major bay segment for the period 1989-2008 and for a future scenario and updating load estimates based on a new watershed loading model.

• To define the quantitative relationships between chlorophyll a concentrations and light attenuation for each bay segment;

• To estimate the chlorophyll thresholds to meet the light attenuation and seagrass targets for each bay segment;

• To define the quantitative relationships between nutrient loading and chlorophyll a concentrations for each bay segment; and

• To estimate the numeric nutrient criteria, i.e., the nutrient loading consistent with the chlorophyll a thresholds, for each bay segment. These estimates will incorporate additional hydrological factors, including circulation and residence time, and water clarity parameters. Our initial efforts have resulted in establishing seagrass targets for each of the main bay segments (Table 1). Seagrass targets were based on either historical (1950) coverage or the average of the two most recent surveys (2004 - 2006). These targets will be re-evaluated every five years. This process was vetted at the technical and management levels of the program; in May 2009, the SBEP policy board formally approved and adopted the seagrass acreages as restoration goals. The SBEP has also established and approved interim chlorophyll a targets (also Table 1). The period 2001 - 2005 was selected as the performance window to include multiyear conditions antecedent to the most recent seagrass surveys. This time period also included years that had a wide range in annual rainfall. Since the average seagrass coverage from 2004 - 2006 for all bay segments are at or above 1950 coverage, water quality conditions from our performance window must be sufficient for seagrass to meet the designated target acreages. Historic chlorophyll thresholds (FAC 62-303) were established in 2004 by FDEP to evaluate nutrient impairment by major bay segment as identified in the EPA 1998 303d report. FDEP evaluated impairment in 2005, 2007 and 2009 using these historic chlorophyll thresholds. All

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3881Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Sarasota Bay segments have been de-listed by the FDEP for nutrients (chlorophyll a). Original comment letters contains additional information in Table 1. Sarasota Bay Seagrass and Chlorophyll a Targets by Bay Segment. Chlorophyll a Values Represent the Average of the Annual Means for the Period 2001 - 2005. See original comment letter. SBEP Concerns with the Proposed Rule The SBEP has concerns regarding the draft rule for numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and streams within the Sarasota Bay watershed. This rule is based on the initial premise that Sarasota Bay loads are above its assimilative capacity. However, Sarasota Bay is below the chlorophyll thresholds in each of its bay segments and no segment has been deemed "impaired" for nutrients by the FDEP. Additionally, seagrass acreages are at or above their targets. The SBEP approach to establishing the approved loading targets is similar to the approach used in Tampa Bay (Greening and Janicki, 2006; Janicki and Wade, 1996) and follows EPA's technical guidance which states that quantifying stressor-response relationships is the preferred approach in establishing numeric nutrient criteria. Specifically, the SBEP will be defining these quantitative relationships between nutrient loads and chlorophyll levels in all Sarasota Bay segments. There is considerable evidence to demonstrate that existing loads to Sarasota Bay are providing for the full aquatic life protection and support for all designated uses related to nutrients in the estuary. There are other concerns that deal specifically with the application of the USGS Spatially Referenced Regression on Watershed Attributes (SPARROW) model for the southeastern US. This model was used to calculate both existing and baseline loads for Sarasota Bay that were used to estimate protective loads for Sarasota Bay. While the SPARROW model may work well for its expressed purpose, i.e., to examine landscape characteristics that influence delivery of nitrogen from sources within the watersheds in the southeastern US, its application to the Sarasota Bay watershed is questionable. The Sarasota Bay load estimates that are being developed are driven by local data sources (particularly point sources, atmospheric deposition, and fertilizer shipping), while the SPARROW coefficients are based on regional (southeastern US) data. Thus, the scaling of SPARROW to such a small basin as Sarasota Bay needs to be validated. Estimates using SPARROW do not fully reflect the time-varying loads to an estuary and its resulting response to those loads. Rather, the downstream load is based on a load normalized to the hydrologic conditions experienced in 2002. The proposed DPV for TN (.54 mg/l) is less than the natural concentrations cited in the Lemon Bay model by EPA. Finally, the SBEP has concerns with the methodology for proposed downstream protection value (DPV) for estuarine protection for Sarasota Bay. The proposed DPV is inappropriate based on the fact that current nutrient loadings to the bay are not above their assimilative capacity based on recent trends and current acreages of seagrass, the primary response variable. The proposed

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3882Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams TN concentration- 0.54 mg/L- for downstream protection is less than the concentration from natural areas derived by the EPA using the Lemon Bay Watershed Model. The SBEP will propose an alternative quantitative methodology based on scientifically defensible approaches, to derive and quantify the protective load to Sarasota Bay and its tributary streams. SBEP Recommendations In conclusion, we have summarized the site-specific work that has been completed for Sarasota Bay, including the establishment of seagrass and chlorophyll a targets, the ongoing development of quantitative relationships among seagrasses, light, chlorophyll and nutrients, and the development of a new locally based nutrient loading model. This process has given us a comprehensive understanding of the relationships between nutrient loading and water quality responses in the Bay. Specifically, we recommend that the EPA consider adopting the downstream protective loads that will be established by the SBEP for the estuarine and coastal waters rule. The SBEP will present draft criteria to the FDEP and EPA by June, 2010. Thank you for your advanced consideration of this information regarding numeric nutrient criteria developed by the SBEP in the water quality standards rule making process.


# Comment ID 1878-1.001.006

Author Name: Reese T. Organization: Attorney At Law et al. Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) has disputed with EPA's proposed numbers because EPA's numbers are lower than the NMC figures. We disagree with the NMC. The NMC numbers are primarily based upon light penetration for sea grasses, not Florida's WQS for D.O. and aquatic health. This is important because D.O. is the most frequently listed parameter the Florida and EPA Section 303(d) lists have both identified for listed impaired waters of the Tampa Bay area. The NMC goal of maintaining D.O. levels is a violation of Florida's WQS for D.O. The annual D.O. levels and median D.O. levels referenced in the 2006 Poe Report that the NMC relies upon are neither Florida's D.O. WQS nor Florida's antidegradation WQS. EPA's proposed numeric nutrient standard correctly assess the nutrient causes of D.O. violations. The CWA mandates the TMDL for the D.O. impaired waters must be meet Florida's antidegradation standard and Florida's D.O. standard "with a margin of safety" on a daily basis, not an annual basis nor a median basis. The numeric nutrient standard should be based upon compliance with the DO WQS.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3883Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Here is an excerpt from the 2006 Poe Report, a copy of which can be obtained from the Tampa bay Estuary Program. The maintenance of other designated uses has occurred in response to the nitrogen management strategy developed in Tampa Bay. Dissolved oxygen conditions in the bay have been maintained at appropriate levels during the time when nitrogen loads and bay chlorophyll-a concentrations have been actively managed. Typically, the lowest dissolved oxygen conditions occur during the summer months in Hillsborough Bay; however, no apparent increasing trends have been detected for the areal extent of hypoxia during these months in this bay segment (Janicki et al. 2001c). More recently, bay-wide monitoring data indicate that the overall variability in annual dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations (the difference between the observed maximum and minimum values) appears to be declining over time, and median DO conditions in all major bay segments are protective of aquatic life support (Poe 2006). As a result, fish and wildlife populations in Tampa Bay have either shown stable or increasing trends in abundance due to the overall ecosystem improvements that have occurred in response to nitrogen load reductions in Tampa Bay (Poe 2006)." 

# Comment ID 1885.001.002

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County Based on all of this local effort and the biological response indicator we believe that EPA's underlying premise that "Most of Florida's estuaries are listed as impaired to some extent by nutrients or nutrient-related causes" is an incorrect assumption on which to base numeric nutrient criteria for our local area. None of the estuaries in the SBEP study area are currently listed as impaired for nutrients. More specifically page 4200 of the Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 16/Tuesday, January 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules states: "Most of Florida's estuaries are listed as impaired to some extent by nutrients or nutrient-related causes. Florida's 1998 CWA section 303(d) verified list of impaired waters under the Impaired Waters Rule (FAC 62-303) identify many estuaries or estuary segments that are impaired by nutrient, chlorophyll a, or low dissolved oxygen. Many or most estuaries have reduced water clarity and substantial loss of seagrass habitats" is flawed as a basis for developing numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries within the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program jurisdiction . When looked at as the interconnected ecosystem that they are, the SBEP bays have increased the total acreage of seagrass over the historic benchmark of 1948-50. The graphic below shows aerial mapping of seagrass in Sarasota Bay which shows dramatic gains since 1988 when the Southwest Florida Water Management District began aerial mapping of seagrass. Original comment letter contains additional information in the figure displaying acres of seagrass in Sarasota Bay on page 4 of the pdf. See original comment letter. Scallops appear to be surviving as a result of improving water quality as indicated by a scallop seeding and monitoring program (see attached report from the Florida Marine Research Institute). Based on these biological response indicators Sarasota bays are meeting their designated use for with reference to nutrients . This indicates that exiting loads for both total nitrogen and total phosphorus are protective of estuarine waters within the SBEP study area. Therefore large load reductions which would be required by the proposed Downstream Protection Values are unnecessary. Under these circumstances, DPV required investments could misdirect huge amounts of funding from legitimate water quality needs.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3884Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Based on the above information we strongly support EPA's decision to not finalize the proposed Downstream Protection Values at this time 

# Comment ID 1885.001.003

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County EPA asked for feedback on "site specific analysis for particular estuaries that should be used" for protecting downstream estuaries instead of the EPA approach . Sarasota County suggests the EPA should protect the estuaries inour region by establishing nitrogen load limits to protect seagrass . The tools to be used should include the SIMPLEMonthly model, a circulation model that includes wind effects (perhaps EFDC), and a select set of monthly high-quality bay water quality data. The load targets should apply to bays and not tidal creeks . Relationships can be quantified among loading and light limiting substances (including chlorophyll) and seagrass acreage . This process is already underway as collaboration among the estuary programs in our area and their partners such as the SWFWMD, the DEP, the Cities and Counties. 

# Comment ID 1885.001.007

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County Technical Comments Description of the SIMPLE-Monthly model The Agency has proposed using the SPARROW model but the Sarasota area has a local model that has many advantages. Sarasota is a predominantly coastal area with short, tidal streams so it is predominantly ungauged . SIMPLE-Monthly is a calibrated model that accurately estimates runoff. It is a GIS-based model that depicts more than a dozen streams rather than the few shown in SPARROW. Significant effort was made to include real data in monthly time steps, such as many years of NEXRAD rainfall, actual discharges (DMR) data from point sources, field-mapped stormwater bmps, time stamped land use changes, estimated loadings from septics and effluent reuse based on local data and Florida published information, EMCs comparable to those used by regulators in Florida, regional atmospheric deposition values, and large wastewater spills (abnormal events). The model was developed for planning purposes but also in response to regulatory models that were unable to correlate loading changes to man-made causes. TMDL models had been proposed for this area that showed increasing loads that could only be explained by increasing rain . SIMPLE-Monthly is able to tease out the differences between meteorological changes in load from those caused by wastewater and land use changes. This loading model will be used in conjunction with estuarine circulation models (in development; probably EFDC) to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3885Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams estimate residence time. Monthly loads will be correlated with our long-term, high-quality monthly bay monitoring data. The result will allow realistic relationships to be established between management activities and estuarine health. The costly development of these tools is worthwhile if they prevent broad-brush estimates of problems and remedies and instead focus resources on projects that have demonstrable value . We strongly support environmental improvements for which there is strong evidence of an outcome in proportion to dollars spent. 

# Comment ID 1885.001.017

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County

- Among local water quality issues protecting our estuaries from excessive nutrients is a top priority . Many water quality achievements aimed towards this goal and have made real progress. The Downstream Protective Values in the proposed rule are unhelpful. Striving for 0.54 mg/I of total nitrogen in our freshwater streams is an unrealistically low target . 

# Comment ID 1885.001.025

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County The load reductions under the EPA criteria would usually be more severe than would be required using the FDEP IWR criteria. Downstream protective concentrations as developed using SPARROW are almost universally significantly more restrictive than in-stream standards, often less than one-half of the in-stream values, thus increasing the burden on local governments and other stakeholders. As discussed above, the use of the regional SPARROW model to develop the DPV is questionable, as its coarse hydrologic network is not appropriate for developing load reductions at the WBID scale. 

# Comment ID 1885.001.028

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County Finally, the assumption made in setting the IPV and DPV values - that WBIDs in the Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor watersheds require a significant load reduction to protect aquatic and estuarine resources - should be reconsidered, as this is not a valid assumption . Extensive local work has been completed to develop pollutant loading estimates that are much more specific and detailed than the SPARROW results. These loads should not be ignored in resource management at any level. Also, it has been determined that current nutrient loadings to local estuaries are appropriate to facilitate the protection of seagrasses, one of the most important local natural resources . It has been demonstrated that seagrass acreage is the same currently as in the 1950s. In light of the success of local management efforts,

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3886Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams overlapping impairment designations are not necessary. Original comment letter contains additional information in Table 3.1, "Freshwater WBIDs Impaired for Nutrients based on FDEP and EPA criteria," Figure 3.1, "Sarasota County Impaired WBIDs under existing FDEP and proposed EPA criteria" and Figure 3.2, "Sparrow model hydrography." See original comment letter. 

# Comment ID 1894.001.006

Author Name: Fields G. Organization: City of Lakeland Estimated Loads to Estuary City technical staff has advised that EPA used information from a model developed by the U. S. Geological Survey to estimate nitrogen reduction targets for many of Florida's estuaries including Tampa Bay. It is the City's understanding that the USGS developed the "SPARROW" model to look at the fate of nutrients on a national and regional level and that the model was not designed to be used on a scale as small as a specific bay or estuary. Additionally, comments published by the Florida DEP suggest that EPA used information from the model to estimate existing nitrogen loads to Tampa Bay as well as those loads EPA would guess to have occurred during "natural conditions ." The required nitrogen reduction for Tampa Bay was derived by splitting the difference between the "existing conditions" nitrogen load and "natural conditions" nitrogen load. In short, EPA simply divided by two. This process appears to be completely arbitrary. As in selecting the 75 percentile as the cutoff point for the stream criteria, taking two rough estimates of unknown conditions and dividing by two does not appear to be sufficiently rigorous to justify the expenditure of taxpayer money to reduce nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay. This is especially true in light of detailed comments submitted by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, in response to EPA's rule, that demonstrate that existing nutrient loads to the bay are not harming the bay and that sea grasses are once again thriving. Downstream Protective Values The City is also concerned with EPA's promulgation of downstream protective values (DPVs) derived from information taken from the USGS SPARROW model discussed above . The DPVs are supposedly nutrient targets that must be met within Florida streams to protect downstream estuaries. However, EPA has already set nutrient criteria for the streams. Regardless, EPA has proposed (and temporarily withdrawn) a second set of numbers that are a fraction of the stream values. For Tampa Bay, DPVs for TN range from a low of 0.56 mg/1 to a high of 1.11 mg/1 (a 40% to 70% reduction from the stream values EPA has proposed for tributaries to the bay). The Florida DEP has estimated nutrient loads from various land uses for many years as part of its stormwater program and has relied upon similar estimates prepared by a number of stormwater research groups in Florida. These estimated loads are called Event Mean Concentrations or EMCs. Representative EMCs for undeveloped lands include 0.70 mg/1 TN for natural areas (Harper 2004) and 1.09 for pine flatwoods (FDEP 2004).[1] The DPVs for Tampa Bay would fall below the nitrogen loads expected from undeveloped land.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3887Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Once again, the City is at a loss to understand the logic behind EPA's proposed numbers. The City must carefully weigh every decision to expend public funds on projects even projects that are clearly in the public interest such as environmental restoration efforts. However, as proposed, EPA's rule would ask the City to commit taxpayer money to pursue nutrient reductions that do not appear necessary or based upon sound science. [1] Additionally, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection applied EPA's proposed Downstream Protective Values to its highly studied and well documented minimally disturbed reference or benchmark waters and found that 85% of Florida's reference streams would fail to comply with EPA's proposed DPVs. If 85% of the State's most pristine waters would exceed the DPVs, it is likely that 95% or more of Florida streams would exceed the DPVs and be considered impaired and in need of restoration under the TMDL program. 

# Comment ID 2018-6.001.018

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa 38. EPA makes the inappropriate assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries. In Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses serve as the desired endpoint to assess water quality management activities aimed at controlling nutrient loadings. Seagrass coverage has increased in each of these systems since the 1980s, indicating the success of watershed management actions. Therefore, it is difficult to justify additional load reductions where empirical data show such responses to management actions specifically developed to address water quality problems. 39. Utilization of SPARROW to determine protective loads to Florida estuaries is inappropriate, as the regional model was not intended to be used for site-specific application in regulatory programs. USGS suggests that for local-scale use, estimated loads for actual time periods should be used. In Florida, loading estimates based on best available information exist for Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and should be used when evaluating estuarine protective loads. 40. SPARROW model calibration fitted model coefficients based on data from sites in Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, so that the coefficients and explanatory variables providing the best fit for the entire model domain are not necessarily the same as would be found if the model were fit for a specific watershed or state. To utilize SPARROW model output to establish estuarine protective values and downstream protective values within streams of Florida, it would be much more appropriate to limit the model's spatial domain to Florida or even a group of Florida watersheds, and derive explanatory variables and fitted model coefficients based on this more appropriate model domain. 41. The SPARROW model was not validated, with calibration only for 2002 conditions using long-term gaged loads and atmospheric deposition loads detrended to 2002. It is also inappropriate to utilize a model which has not undergone validation under conditions other than those used for calibration. The use of a model for management decision making is predicated on the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions when observed inputs are provided. The robustness of the model is often determined by testing the model under varying inputs. After calibration, the model is validated under input conditions different than those used for calibration, and the ability of the model to recreate observed conditions with this different set of inputs attests to the ability of the model to be used as a predictive tool. 42. Application of the SPARROW model does not incorporate the best available information at local scales, using only

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3888Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 1:500,000-scale hydrography and estimated loads not always based on all available data for a watershed. A more appropriate application would utilize information already available, as for loadings to Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and more refined hydrography to calibrate the model. It is important to understand, however, that the model is used only because of the EPA assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries, and thus some method is used to derive protective loads. For those estuaries with empirical data indicating that protective loads are not being exceeded, and with technically sound and defensible estimates of what the protective loads are, application ofSPARROW is not only superfluous but wasteful of resources as well. 43. The application ofthe reverse attenuation methodology to derive DPYs for stream reaches protective of downstream estuaries has merit, but is predicated on the model providing an accurate estimation ofthe protective value for a given estuary, which the SAGT SPARROW application does not provide. Where accepted estuarine loading estimates are available, a similar process could bc utilized to derive DPYs. 

# Comment ID 2045-1.001.004

Author Name: Tonsmeire D. Organization: Apalachicola Riverkeeper The duration of outbreaks of red tide in Apalachicola Bay can be initiated or extended by the influx of nutrient sources from the rivers, streams, and stormwater runoff into Apalachicola Bay and from outside of the Apalachicola basin into the Gulf . These outbreaks can debilitate seafood production and suspend the ecotourism activities, two primary components of the most significant of Florida's natural resources economy. Establishing accurate and relevant numeric nutrient standards throughout the Gulf Coast drainage is absolutely critical for Apalachicola Bay. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.012

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries EPA did not bother to adapt, calibrate and test the USGS Sparrow Model to create its downstream protective values (DPVs) but simply took output files from the model to fabricate crude estimates of existing and natural nutrient load conditions and then, incredulously, simply divided by two to derive allowable nutrient loads for the estuaries. The nutrient reduction targets were then divided up among tributaries to the estuaries to create downstream protective values (DPVs), although instream protection values (IPVs) for those tributaries had already been developed and-if consistent with federal law-must already be protective of downstream waters, i.e., the same estuaries. 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.025

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3889Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

2.3 Downstream Protective Values - Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(2)(iii) In his letter of March 17, 2010, EPA Assistant Administrator Pete Silva advised Florida DEP Secretary Mike Sole that EPA has decided to delay finalization of it proposed Downstream Protective Values (DPVs) for estuary protection until 2011 and seek "additional third party review" of the scientific basis for the DPVs. While we concur with the decision to remove DPV criteria from the proposal, no amount of delay or review will justify EPA's application of SPARROW model output files or the resulting DPVs.
2.3.1 Use of SPARROW Output Values The SPARROW model was not developed for the purposes employed by EPA in proposing its DPVs. In fact, EPA did not review, adjust, calibrate or test the model at all but simply manipulated output files produced by the USGS. The output files were then used to estimate current load conditions and natural load conditions; the natural or background conditions load estimate was subtracted from the existing conditions load and-without any explanation-divided by two. This approach is arbitrary and without any scientific or statistical basis. Once again, EPA has abandoned any attempt to establish a causal relationship between nutrient concentrations and biological response variables. The resulting number was used to estimate load reductions necessary to meet a totally artificial and fabricated nutrient load. As discussed herein, the resulting numbers have no relationship to real world conditions.
2.3.2 Protection of Downstream Waters EPA used the "allowable loads" derived for the estuaries from the USGS SPARROW output files to ratchet down its instream protect values (IPVs) to establish the downstream protection values (DPVs). Since the calculation of the target loads are unsupportable scientifically or statistically, so too are the resulting DPVs. Most importantly, as noted above, if EPA had adhered to its own regulations and developed IPVs that were protective[21] downstream waters, there would be no need to calculate DPVs.
2.3.3 Conflict with Real World Indicators As noted, CF has a long history of active participation in the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) and is a founding member of the TBEP Nitrogen Management Consortium. By cover letter dated March 8, 2010, the Consortium provided detailed comments and supporting materials to EPA which are now part of the record for this matter (Docket 10 No.: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596). As result of its manipulation of the SPARROW output files, EPA would force a drastic reduction in nitrogen loads to Tampa Bay although the TBEP and the Consortium have established that Tampa Bay is consistently meeting chlorophyll-a targets with seagrass meadows once again flourishing. The loads established in EPA's 1998 TMDL are being met and have proven to be protective of designated uses assigned to the bay. The Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) for undeveloped lands far exceed the agency's constructed DPVS.[22] For Tampa Bay, DPVs for TN range from the low of 0.56 mg/l discussed above to a high of 1.11 mgll (a 40% to 70% reduction from the Instream Protective Values EPA has proposed for tributaries to the bay). Representative EMCs for undeveloped lands include 0.70 mg/l TN for natural areas (Harper 2004) and 1.09 for pine flatwoods (FOEP 2004).[23] Modeling results that would require nutrient loads to be reduced below natural background reflect errors in the model chosen, its application and assumptions applied. Use of the SPARROW model, especially as applied to Tampa Bay, demonstrates a lack of understanding of its application and is, therefore, completely arbitrary and without a statistical for scientific basis. A court "cannot excuse the EPA's reliance upon a methodology that generates apparently arbitrary results.[24]

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3890Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

2.3.4 Improper Attempt to Establish a Regional TMDL EPA's DPV calculations cannot be reconciled with its proposed IPVs. EPA used a reference water approach to derive instream criteria that lack any relationship between nutrient concentrations and biological response variables. In a separate effort, EPA applied the SPARROW output files to generate load estimates for "existing" and "natural" conditions to then subtract one from the other and divide by two. Based upon the latter arbitrary approach, EPA has concluded that the IPVs are insufficiently protective and thus proposed DPVs. The net effect is a regional TMDL; but it is a TMDL based upon a series of false premises. First, the IPVs were assumed to be protective of downstream waters otherwise EPA could not argue that the IPVs are consistent with federal regulations. The SPARROW output files were used to calculate nitrogen loads, and, based upon these machinations; the estuaries were essentially deemed impaired. The DPVs were then generated to reduce loading to the estuaries. In sum, EPA has attempted to step in and take over the State's TMDL program in addition to invading State primacy as to criteria development. A regional TMDL is even less defensible than a regional criterion in that the very definition of TMDL limits the analysis to the affected waterbody. More importantly, assimilative capacity is an integral element of a TMDL, and neither SPARROW nor the reference water approach used to set the IPVs address assimilative capacity. [21] Not more strict but scientifically defensible and protective criteria based upon a cause-and-effect relationship. [22] See also, D. A. Tomasko, M. Alderson and J. Leverone, Sarasota Bay <Implications for EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria, presented February 4, 2010, FDEP Estuarine Criteria Workshop, St. Petersburg, Florida. [23] Additionally, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection applied EPA's proposed Downstream Protective Values to its highly studied and well documented minimally disturbed reference or benchmark waters and found that 85% of Florida's reference streams would fail to comply with EPA's proposed DPVs. If 85% of the State's most pristine waters would exceed the DPVs, it is likely that 95% or more of Florida streams would exceed the DPVs and be considered impaired and in need of restoration under the TMDL program. See Evaluation of Florida Benchmark Site Exceedance Frequency Relative to EPA's Proposed In-stream Protection Values (IPVs) and Downstream Protection Values (DPVs), Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration, February 1,2010. [24] Appalachian Power Company v. EPA, 252 F.3d 1026, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 

# Comment ID 2233-1.001.083

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries Specific Comments on Proposed Downstream Protection for Estuaries40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(2)(iii) We understand that the downstream protective value (DPVs) approach for estuaries will be postponed until next year when the State of Florida and USEPA propose estuarine numeric nutrient criteria. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3891Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams comment on our understanding of the DPV proposal and suggest alternatives for USEPA's consideration, particularly because some of the proposed methods have not been subjected to formal review (to our knowledge) by any USEPA peer review group and because these methods use some concepts that we believe do not adhere to the SAB recommendations. General comments on application of the SPARROW model for derivation of a DPV The USEPA has used the USGS SPARROW model, which for this application was derived for the entire southeastern US and has applied the derived formulae in a novel method to derive DPV for Florida estuaries. We regard this as an inappropriate application of the SPARROW model and point out the following issues with USEPA's application. a) The analytical approach used by USEPA to derive the DPV is fundamentally flawed because no response variable was used by the agency to compare with the loads/concentration (i.e., again the USEPA did not provide a demonstrated cause-effect relationship, which again violates recent SAB recommendations). The USEPA needs to define an appropriate response variable(s) to be used in estuarine systems. Further, as a requirement of that analysis it is SER's opinion that the USEPA must define a scientifically justifiable and demonstrated linkage between the causal parameters and the response variable chosen by USEPA. b) There has been no external peer review of the approach, which is a totally new conceptual framework for regulatory purposes. Modeling approaches are generally required to have significant internal and external peer review, and it appears in their rush to get this approach "to press", USEPA ignored its own protocols in the application of a new method. c) The DPV's are predicated on an arbitrary and non-validated endpoint, the decision that % existing loads was picked out of the air and has no relationship to any response variable in the downstream estuaries and hence scientificallyinvalid and grossly inappropriate. Again SER reiterates that the USEPA must develop a scientifically justifiable stressorresponse relationship as recommended by the SAB. d) The FDEP has noted numerous errors in the SPARROW including the fact that it is not based on cause &effect and other serious issues which seriously impacts the validity of the SPARROW model results. SER specifically refers to the comments prepared by Wayne Magley of FDEP and the USGS response to those comments (Magley, pers. comm., 2­ 1-2010; FDEP, 2009; FDEP, 2010b). There were many serious technical issues with the model runs made by USGS, particularly data errors, including misplaced sampling stations, outfall locations not represented correctly, especially where known interbasin transfers were known to exist, and other data related issues. FDEP comments highlight significant modeling issues such as the treatment of some reservoirs in the RF'I level database as simply stream reaches with no retention and with velocities calculated in SPARROW which exceed median observed velocities in some stream reaches by as much as 10 times (i.e. 0.15 fps calculated by SPARROW as 1.5 fps) While USGS is preparing a corrected dataset at a better resolution (1: 100,000 representation versus 1:500,000 representation currently being used) and will rerun the model, many questions regarding the accuracy of the results are still in question by FDEP. SER respectively suggests that the USGS run the SPARROW model using Florida specific watershed and using data at a scale that reflects its intended use. The current implementation of the model is not suitable for use in the regulatory arena in Florida. It is unlikely that any application of the SPARROW model will be meaningful. Statistical Concerns with the Methods used to Estimate Protective Estuary Loads and DPVs Error of Model - 35%

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3892Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams While the R-square appears to indicate a "good fit" of the model, the basic model underlying the estimated estuary TN loads results in a Root Mean Square Error of 35%. This means that on average, a point prediction will have an error of 35%. This leads to wide confidence intervals for the TN load predictions. Because this is the first step of the methodology that leads to the DPVs, this much error in the predictions could lead to highly erroneous TN protective loads for the estuaries and therefore erroneous DPVs. Error of predictions - Individual errors often much larger than 35% The estimated estuary TN loads are found by adding the TN loads from the terminal reaches and shoreline reaches leading to each estuary. Each of the estimated loads for the reaches is derived from the SAGT SPARROW model with 35% error, on average. Many of these reaches have a much higher error of prediction due, in part, to the size of the watershed associated with the reach. The standard error for the Withlacoochee River Estuary - which consists of one terminal reach estimate - is 45%. This means that while the point estimate for the TN load for the estuary is around 450,000 kg/y, the 90% confidence interval spans from approximately 200,000 kg/y to over 800,000 kg/yo Recall that the interpretation of a 90% confidence interval is that we are 90% certain that the true TN load is between 200,000 kg/y and 800,000 kg/yo This is a broad range. Basing further analysis on a point estimate with this much error may lead to invalid results. This relatively large RMSE is likely in part due to the large variability in the nitrogen loads for the calibration data set. This variability may be lessened if the calibration dataset is limited to Florida sites. In addition factors in the model to account for the aquifer factor and/or other Florida specific effects would likely decrease the error. It is absolutely necessary for the model to be based on a Florida specific database. Model Specifications and Data The SAGT-SPARROW model uses a regional variable to allow for differences in the landscape characteristic effects. The inclusion of these regional-landscape variables reduces the spatial correlation of the model which is a positive result. Essentially, each local-scale landscape characteristic effect is altered by the coefficient of the regional landscape variable. However, because the regional variables were not interacted with the local variables, the region must have the same effect on each local-landscape characteristic. For example, the coefficient estimate for region HLR2 is -0.29. Thus, each of the physical landscape variables effect estimates will be reduced by -0.29. That is, effect of soil permeability, depth to bedrock, and mean annual precipitation are all reduced by 0.29. If interactions had been included, the region would be able to have at different effect on each physical landscape variable. It does not seem reasonable to assume that the physical landscape characteristics are all impacted in the same way. This is particularly true in many areas of Florida where we have pointed out previously, and is explicitly acknowledged by USEPA (USEPA 2010a, pg 4180). have intimate interactions with groundwater, particularly in Karst areas, but also true in areas with highly permeable soils and shallow groundwater.As mentioned above, the SAGT-SPARROW model data omits much of Florida in its calibration dataset. The NorthCentral area of Florida is impacted by the complex aquifer system. The impact of the aquifer is unknown on the nitrogen attenuation. Thus, estimates for streams in this area may be riddled with error. The SAGT-SPARROW model is being extrapolated beyond the inference space of the data which may result in significant errors. Including this data in the calibration data along with a factor for aquifer may potentially solve this problem.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3893Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Binning of "Fraction Delivered" to determine DPVs The binning of the fractions delivered into the ranges described in #9 above results in overly restrictive estimates of the DPVs. For example, a FracDelTar for a stream estimated at 81% is rounded to 90% to calculate that DPV for that stream. Consider in addition that smaller streams not captured by the stream network used in the SAGT-SPARROW model (ERF1) are mapped to larger streams in the ERF1 network, assigning the smaller streams FracDelTar of the larger stream. As stated by the USEPA2 , smaller streams often have a smaller fraction delivered due to the higher level of instream losses of TN. In the example of a stream with a FracDelTar of 81 %, smaller streams assigned to this ERF1 reach could have even smaller FracDelTars; however, these streams would be assigned a FracDelTar of 90% in determining the DPV. Error of FracDelTar point estimates In addition to the conservative nature of the procedure described above, the SAGT-SPARROW model results in a wide range of error for the point estimates of FracDelTar for each ERF1 reach. For example, Pensacola Bay and reach MRBJD = 8509 has a point estimate for FracDelTar of 0.71. In the USEPA procedure this would be rounded to .8 for the purposes of calculating the DPV. The 90% confidence interval for this stream's FracDelTar is (0.58 to 0.88). The interpretation of this confidence interval is that we are 90% certain that the true value for FracDelTar falls between 0.58 and 0.88. Thus the true value for the fraction delivered for this stream could be as low as 0.58 or as high as 0.88. The wide range of this confidence interval is due to the significant error in the point estimates for the FracDelTar. If indeed the true value for the Fraction Delivered is 0.58, then the EPAs procedure is using a value that is over 20 percentage points higher than should be used to calculate the DPV, resulting in a speciously restrictive estimate for the DPV. Thus, USEPA has developed and proposed downstream protective values for the protection of estuaries which are not grounded in good science. While the technical limitations of the USEPA - SPARROW implementation are listed above,the USEPA 2 USEPA 201Oa. Water Quality Standard for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters, EPAHQOW- 2009-0596, p. 110. exacerbates those problems by applying a convenient but crudely derived load reduction factor based on an unsupported assumption, that a protective value is represented by a 50% reduction in anthropogenic load of Total Nitrogen (derived from the questionable SPARROW load estimates). There is no justification of this load reduction for all estuaries and no dose-response relationship. USEPA attempts to justify the assumption by pointing out that their number falls within the range of loads established by current TMDL's and PLRG's for Florida estuaries, that have been established by a variety of site specific studies. Surely, the load in the TMDL studies could range from 0% to 100% reduction and thus 50% would certainly fall within that range. The assumption that this justifies the USEPA methodology is untenable. Suggested Alternative approaches for Estuaries With Florida's lakes and streams, it will be necessary to appropriately subdivide the systems depending on their respective physiographic provinces and geological based chemistry, since the various systems respond in vastly different manners. The same is true for Florida's estuarine waters, and USEPA decision to provide downstream protective values is premature, and does not reflect the differences that are seen throughout Florida's estuarine systems. More importantly, as pointed out by FDEP, much progress has been made in managing Florida's estuarine systems, and given the number of estuarine systems is far less when compared to lakes, does it make sense to vary

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3894Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams from a site specific approach for estuaries and develop a poorly fitting (analytically) approach to apply to all Florida's estuarine waters? The numbers of estuaries are far less, individually more highly variable and dynamic when compared to stream segments or lakes (more than 7,700) and, we would assert that it makes no sense to develop a poorly fitted empirical model when site specific approaches through the TMDL program are working already (as demonstrated in the Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, etc). Further, the effort to produce the hydrodynamic models has already been accomplished and models are available for many estuaries (see Weisburg, 2010) that have been linked to the operational HYCOM system developed by the US Navy. Would it not make more sense and be more scientifically valid, in estuarine areas where significant work has not been done, to start with existing efforts and models? However, since the USEPA will be working on numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries in the coming months, SER expressly provides its opinion regarding issues raised by the direction the USEPA has chosen to take. The key features of estuarine systems that must be considered by both the State and USEPA when attempting to predict response to nutrients are presented below. a) Physiographic diversity of Florida estuaries Estuaries are highly diverse physiographic units and the application of a uniform criterion derived from a single model for all systems in Florida is not justifiable. Existing validated programs should be utilized over concocted surrogate approaches. Just as the geology and watershed characteristics have shaped many of Florida's lakes and streams, the same forcing functions have shaped the ultimate development of Florida's estuaries. Many estuarine studies are designed to first classify the systems and then assess the biological community in the framework of its underlying geology and hydrology (Boyer et al., 2009). b) Hydrologic Flushing A key factor in estuaries that determines the system's response to nutrients is hydrologic flushing from riverine and tidal (and offshore) inputs. As with lakes (see Vollenweider discussion for lakes above) the response of the system is in large part determined by its hydrologic residence time. This has been pointed out for many estuarine systems (Monbet, 1992; Lowery 1996, 1998; Bricker et al., 2007) and particularly for Florida systems (Steward and Lowe, 2010; Bledsoe and Phlips, 2000; Bledsoe, et al., 2004; Weisberg, 2010). Any method to derive nutrient criteria should account for hydrologic flushing. c) Salinity-Stratification Many researchers have noted that the estuarine eutrophication response, and especially hypoxic conditions, occurs within the oligo-mesohaline portion of the estuary (Lowery 1996,1998). The response is also exacerbated by salinity stratification allowing for the settling of organic load resulting from production (Smith, 1993, 2003, 2006). d) Grazing and Secondary Productivity The high secondary productivity in some estuaries, (i.e. oysters and other shellfish), is not reflected in its planktonic primary production (i.e. high chlorophyll a), typically because of high turbidity from clays and detritus. However, these economic and socially desirable systems are driven by its naturally high nutrient load. The assumption that this high nutrient load is necessarily bad is a ridiculous regulatory construct (Livinqston - Apalachicola Bay). More recently, as USEPA has recognized, the Vollenweider concept has been successfully applied to both lacustrine and estuarine systems in Florida (Steward and Lowe, 2010). We believe that the relatively good fit using the Vollenweider approach was in part fortuitous because it represented a rather small portion of Florida's estuarine and lacustrine systems. However, the model does illustrate the importance of using estuarine flushing, which is residence time, in empirical equations, to derive a better empirical fit between load and response in linear regressions. However, many of the same limitations of the Vollenweider approach we pointed out for Florida lakes are also valid for estuaries.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3895Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

USEPA was aware of these empirical alternative models but chose not to invest in further analysis. They acknowledge that the Steward and Lowe (2010) model was available but ignore the approach based on the fact that their loads from SPARROW were arguably within the range of loads for all estuaries predicted by Steward and Lowe. This superficial analysis is insufficient given the consequences of the promulgation of this rule. Further, the fact that the ranges are similar does not give justification for the EPA methods as they imply, with no comparison of how the model predictions compare to known conditions in individual estuaries. If the upper and lower ranges are predicted poorly, in terms of estuarine response, then a simple comparison of ranges does not justify the validity of the method. In addition, more robust empirical models incorporating flushing and other factors were also available to USEPA which they chose not to use. These include Lowery (1996, 1998) which integrates both watershed load (derived from NOAA's efforts - Bricker et aI., 2007) in relationship with flushing, N:P ratio and salinity to determine a response variable (hypoxic condition) which does a reasonable job (89.9% concordance with observed response, hypoxic condition) of predicting the response of major Florida Gul1f Coast estuaries. Lowery also did sensitivity analysis on the model and the model also showed how the various estuaries would respond to increases and decreases to loading, and which estuaries appeared to be sensitive to changes in loadings. The SAB has suggested that USEPA use a more probabilistic approach for deriving criteria for nutrients. The Lowery estuarine model presents a useful probabilistic approach, based on multivariate logistic regression, one of the methods preferred in EPA's own guidance. We suggest this approach be investigated to classify all Florida's estuarine systems, as characterized by FDEP in their ongoing studies and supplemented with data from Bricker et al. (2007) and then use those classifications for those systems which are not currently (or planned) to receive site-specific treatment under Florida's rotating basin planning. The would perhaps provide a more scientifically based approach for filling in the knowledge gaps for systems currently not under direct study for TMDL's or site specific studies. To respond to that suggestion, and if a single nutrient load-response model must be developed, we would recommend using available data from FDEP and NOAA's assessments (Bricker et a/., 2007), to derive a probabilistic model based on Lowery's approach. This would likely have a high likelihood of success and result in a suitable empirical model of Florida's estuaries to be applied in systems without active TMDL's or ongoing management programs. It would include nutrient load estimates that relate to a response variable, the oxygen condition of the estuary (normoxic, hypoxic etc) , taking into account the modifying factors of flushing (tidal and riverine), salinity, spatial area, and N:P ratio into predict a probability of impairment from which management decisions could be reasonably made. 

# Comment ID 2233.001.009

Author Name: Kovach C. Organization: CF Industries 6 . EPA's proposed Downstream Protective Values (DPVs) are unnecessary and poorly derived. CF supports the Agency's decision to withdraw DPV's at this time. Nonetheless, We are concerned that EPA ignored voluminous site specific data for estuaries (e .g ., TBEP and CHNEP data) and instead developed a generalized modeling approach that does; not hold up to scientific and technical scrutiny. Most importantly, CF believes the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3896Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams regulatory concept of DPVs is inherently flawed and unnecessary. Protection of downstream waters is already effectively addressed, both scientifically and legally, through the State's TMDL program. 

# Comment ID 2381.001.001

Author Name: Beever L. Organization: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Thank you for delaying adoption of the downstream protective values (DPVs). As you know, the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program is working with our broad partnership to develop science-based estuarine values based on living resources (seagrasses) through our consensus driven process. 

# Response

Comment IDs: All Response: EPA appreciates comments received regarding downstream protection of estuaries. EPA has deferred final rulemaking on downstream protection of estuaries to the Agency’s 2011 rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters. This decision is consistent with what EPA indicated in its proposed rule signed by the EPA Administrator on January 15, 2010: “At this time, EPA plans to take final action with respect to downstream protection values for nitrogen as part of the second phase of this rulemaking process in coordination with the proposal and finalization of numeric standards for estuarine and coastal waters in 2011” (p. 4208, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596, FRL-9105-1). This decision facilitates coordination with the development of proposed estuarine and coastal water quality criteria. EPA will consider these comments as it develops the proposed rule on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters due to be published in November 2011. EPA encourages commenters to consider providing comments on the 2011 proposed rule as part of that rulemaking process, which may reflect modifications to the downstream protection of estuaries approach described in the January 2010 proposed rule for Florida’s inland waters. On June 7, 2010, EPA and Plaintiffs filed a joint notice with the Court extending the deadlines for promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's estuaries and coastal waters, flowing waters in south Florida (including canals), and the downstream protection values for flowing waters into estuaries and coastal waters. The new deadlines are November 14, 2011 for proposing the criteria, and August 15, 2012 for publishing a final rule for these categories. This will allow EPA time to hold a public peer review by EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board of the scientific methodologies for estuarine and coastal criteria, flowing waters in south Florida, and downstream protection values for estuaries and coastal waters. 

# III.C.6.B.I - OVERVIEW Comment ID 0670.001.003

Author Name: Cole T.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3897Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Florida Pulp and Paper Association But a lot of questions are coming up on modeling, for instance this SPARROW model, a very critical item in terms of downstream waters. And I think one thing that a lot of the clients I represent -- and if I didn't say that, by the way, I'm here -- I represent a number of clients in this, Florida Pulp and Paper being one of the primary ones. But I have some folks like USGS here with y'all and your technical folks discussing the appropriateness of the model, how it works, how it doesn't, what are its strengths, what are its weaknesses; likewise, why were certain waters that DEP used that were picked out as somewhat pristine and y'all disagreed with that -- and I'm not commenting either way -- but just what was the rationale? There are a lot of things like that that go into it that y'all could not answer the questions today and no one expected you would. You have to manage this in a way that's fair to all and wouldn't get bogged down, but that would be something good to consider, I think, as you go through the process. 

# Comment ID 0715.001.003

Author Name: Emery S. Organization: That brings me to my second point, very briefly, is that from my review of the SPARROW model, I think you can do better in terms of developing models or, better yet, allowing those of us who have that's expertise in the State of Florida provide you with alternative models for site-specific areas within Florida that you can use in lieu of the SPARROW model. I think you can do a lot better than what that very general model provides. Those are my two points. Thank you very much. 

# Comment ID 0723.001.009

Author Name: Payne J. Organization: Farmland Reserve, Inc. doing business as Deseret Ranches of Florida One other thing that is concerning is that the downstream protection is overly protective when translated upstream. I am not convinced that the SPARROW model is the most appropriate thing for EPA to be using in trying to establish criteria for downstream protection. It would be better if you used the TMDL process that the State has implemented rather than numeric nutrient criteria for downstream water. 

# Comment ID 0731.001.002

Author Name: Hartney M. Organization: Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association FFAA shares many of the concerns that you have heard expressed very well today about the use of the SPARROW

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3898Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams model, about what is happening with a standard that would make pristine and reference streams be considered impaired. We have a question about whether there's a problem with the number when natural isn't good enough. 

# Comment ID 0734.001.003

Author Name: Young K. Organization: Tampa Electric Company The second is EPA's inappropriate use of the SPARROW model to set downstream protective values. 

# Comment ID 0734.001.007

Author Name: Young K. Organization: Tampa Electric Company Second, EPA's use of USGS's SPARROW model is inappropriate for deriving estuarian loads for downstream protective values. SPARROW is a regional model and cannot take into account all nutrient sources for a specific water body. EPA's use of this model has resulted in downstream protective values that are oftentimes lower than natural background, not taking into account the existing condition of the downstream waters. This has resulted in the failure of some of the state's most minimally-disturbed streams to meet the downstream protective value. 

# Comment ID 0735.001.003

Author Name: Alderson M. Organization: National Estuary Program in Sarasota There's been many concerns about the SPARROW model that's been presented here today. We, too, have similar concerns, particularly in an ungauged system like Sarasota Bay, where we may not get as good of a loading characterization as other models might do. We generally support the comments that have been made by FDEP in relation to the SPARROW model and, as I said, we're going to be really working with FDEP to come up with these criteria within the next few months and we're hustling on that to try to make that deadline. 

# Comment ID 0739.001.009

Author Name: Robbins K.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3899Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Entrix So, our last concern is that we tried to contact EPA several times to find out how exactly the EPA changed the nutrient targets for estuaries and assigned DPVs in their SPARROW modeling. But, although we have gotten responses, the answers have been very generic and did not answer the specific questions that we posed. 

# Comment ID 0746.001.008

Author Name: Long A. Organization: Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed Many of our speakers, those within the scientific community with a technical background, spoke to the fact that the SPARROW model is inappropriate use in its current application for downstream criteria. Additionally, common sense should provide that if the standard is less than the naturally occurring condition, the proposed site was not -- excuse me the proposed standard was not derived with appropriate science or peer review. 

# Comment ID 0822.001.003

Author Name: Hutchcraft M. Organization: King Ranch and Consolidated Citrus We are also concerned when we hear USGS say that they don't think the use of the SPARROW model is the most appropriate application of that model, so we have concerns about the appropriateness of the science behind the standards that you're proposing. 

# Comment ID 0950.001.002

Author Name: Glicksberg D. Organization: Hillsborough County Public Works Department The use of the SPARROW model for determining Downstream Protective Loads is inappropriate for the state of Florida. Modelers with the U.S . Geological Survey and EPA's own Science Advisory Committee have expressed concerns over its use for determining impairments in Florida. It was designed for large, regional watersheds such as the Mississippi River Basin, and should not be used for determining nutrient loads to develop numeric nutrient criteria within Florida. 

# Comment ID 1098-1.001.006

Author Name: Vance A.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3900Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: City of Bonita Springs Concern of EPA's own acknowledgement that SPARROW will not work in SW Florida and some other areas. 

# Comment ID 1100.001.004

Author Name: Hartney M. Organization: Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association Criteria additionally should not be based on novel uses of inappropriate models, such as what we saw earlier when SPARROW was being used for the downstream protective values. We hope that having this brought up in 2011 will give us additional time to discuss the more appropriate use of appropriate models. 

# Comment ID 1255.001.004

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa The proposed numeric standards create significant concerns for the City of Tampa. For instance, the SPARROW model used to develop the standards is a regional loading model and, therefore, is not appropriate to set concentration standards for any water body. It is a regional model and, therefore, the criteria are too generalized. 

# Comment ID 1331-1.001.012

Author Name: Aldstadt S. Organization: City of Pensacola Public Works B. The Overlay Criteria Methodology Proposed to Protect Downstream Uses Squarely Conflicts with the CWA and Is Otherwise Inappropriate For the first time, EPA proposes a methodology that would further lower the numeric criteria for total nitrogen and total phosphorus in the name of downstream protection. (75 Fed.Reg. at p. 4197.) The proposed rule refers to these more stringent values as "downstream protective values" or "DPVs" and explains how they would be determined for the protection of downstream designated uses. (Ibid.) The proposed methodology relies upon EPA's Spatially Referenced Regression on Watershed attributes or "SPARROW" to determine how much of the nitrogen that is discharged into streams and rivers actually reaches the estuary. (ld at p. 4199.) San Bernardino has been informed that EPA decided not to continue to pursue DPVs for estuaries at this time. San Bernardino supports the decision since the concept of adjusting water quality criteria to protect downstream uses requires a more comprehensive review. 

# Comment ID 1462-1.001.008

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3901Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Helfrich C. Organization: City of Boca Raton Utility Services The SPARROW model utilized to calculate standards for streams and canals does not account for the numerous nutrient sources nor groundwater influences, particularly in the canals of south Florida. 

# Comment ID 1885.001.023

Author Name: Connor T. Organization: Office of the Executive Director, Sarasota County 3) Water Body Impairment The following summarizes water bodies within the jurisdiction that have been deemed impaired based on existing FDEP criteria and those that would be impaired if the proposed EPA NNC were adopted. Table 3 .1 and Figure 3 .1 show WBIDS that are impaired under current FDEP IWR criteria, and WBIDS that are impaired under proposed EPA criteria . As can be seen, several WBIDs would be added to the current FDEP list if proposed EPA criteria are applied. Note that the EPA impaired parameters for streams are noted as "IPV" - in-stream protective value" or "DPV" ­ downstream protective value. This differentiation is due to EPA's proposed NNC having concentration limits both for protecting resources within a water body (stream, lake, etc.), and downstream resources (estuary, etc .). FDEP did use downstream protection as a criterion for setting TMDLs for some tidal streams, but not consistently. EPA developed DPVs for Total Nitrogen (TN) for streams only. The EPA's DPVs were developed using the SPARROW computer model. As discussed previously, SPARROW is a regional model used by USGS to estimate nutrient loadings to estuaries in the southeast US. Figure 3 .2 shows surface water flow paths, nodes, and subbasins used by SPARROW . The hydrography (surface water conveyances) used in the model is generalized and does not include many WBID reaches. As such, SPARROW's use in developing management criteria on a local WBID level is questionable. 

# Response

Comment IDs: All Response: EPA appreciates comments received regarding downstream protection of estuaries. EPA has deferred final rulemaking on downstream protection of estuaries to the Agency’s 2011 rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters. This decision is consistent with what EPA indicated in its proposed rule signed by the EPA Administrator on January 15, 2010: “At this time, EPA plans to take final action with respect to downstream protection values for nitrogen as part of the second phase of this rulemaking process in coordination with the proposal and finalization of numeric standards for estuarine and coastal waters in 2011” (p. 4208, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596, FRL-9105-1). This decision facilitates coordination with the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3902Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams development of proposed estuarine and coastal water quality criteria. EPA will consider these comments as it develops the proposed rule on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters due to be published in November 2011. EPA encourages commenters to consider providing comments on the 2011 proposed rule as part of that rulemaking process, which may reflect modifications to the downstream protection of estuaries approach described in the January 2010 proposed rule for Florida’s inland waters. On June 7, 2010, EPA and Plaintiffs filed a joint notice with the Court extending the deadlines for promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's estuaries and coastal waters, flowing waters in south Florida (including canals), and the downstream protection values for flowing waters into estuaries and coastal waters. The new deadlines are November 14, 2011 for proposing the criteria, and August 15, 2012 for publishing a final rule for these categories. This will allow EPA time to hold a public peer review by EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board of the scientific methodologies for estuarine and coastal criteria, flowing waters in south Florida, and downstream protection values for estuaries and coastal waters. 

# III.C.6.Q.10 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 10 No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary.


# III.C.6.B.II - EPA APPROACH TO ESTIMATING PROTECTIVE N LOADS FOR ESTUARIES Comment ID 0588.001.002

Author Name: Gallagher J. Organization: Pasco County EPA's stream criteria for protection of downstream estuaries are not scientifically valid

- Proposed criteria are based on inappropriate application of USGS' SPARROW model

- USGS acknowledges that model not applicable in areas with significant groundwater inputs, which includes much of Central and Northeast Florida (in addition to South Florida)

- Site-specific determination of Downstream Protection Values (DPV) not appropriate given that model was calibrated at regional scale and given course hydrology

- Model estimates of in-stream nitrogen losses are too low due to error caused by lack of nitrogen loading from all sources and inaccurate stream velocities

- Method to determine allowable load is not scientifically valid

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3903Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

- Presumes all Florida estudries are impaired, and existing data and research demonstrates this to not be accurate

- Target established for protection of coastal waters is arbitrary based on mid-point between current loads and oversimplified calculation of background loads

- Resultant DPVs are more stringent than necessary

- Over 80% of DEP's "reference" or pristine sites exceed the criteria and would be deemed impaired

- Initial assessments by FDEP suggest the in-stream criteria are inherently protective of downstream waters making it un-necessary to have independent downstream protection values. 

# Comment ID 0637.001.002

Author Name: Littlejohn C. Organization: Florida Engineering Society Having said that, we have a lot of concerns about this proposed approach to adopt and impose numeric nutrient standards on Florida the way you're going about doing it. First of all, and I'm going to focus on streams and rivers because that's really where the issues seem to be. The reference is a method approximating what a standard should be. It's very different from a criteria and impairment and we fell that EPA should and -- (inaudible) for us in. A spare model in the long FDS film that this spare model is not a good model for its use the way it's been used today. It's being implied and the spare model itself has not been applied appropriately, and for instance in areas where there's significant ground water inputs, there's much of Central Northeast Florida as well as all of South Florida. The spare model is according to FGS not an appropriate model to use in this circumstance, so that's roughly half of the state. The model apparently presumes all of Florida's water Estuaries are impaired, and that's certainly not the result. And we have a standard. We have those standards that are much more stringent that it is said that 80 percent of the Florida's most pristine water bodies as are likely to become required these standards, and we don't disagree with that. 

# Comment ID 0702.001.003

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division A critical concern is this proposal is that it uses the USGS SPARROW model for developing criteria for Florida's estuaries. At a February 4th, 2010 meeting in St. Petersburg, USGS staff stated that EPA's use of the SPARROW model for this effort was inappropriate and frankly bad science. For Tampa Bay, the proposal does not take into account that the estuary is meeting its approved water quality targets. Tampa Bay is meeting its designated use. Based on the estimates from SPARROW, the estuary requires significant reductions beyond what has been demonstrated by decades of research, science, data, not a model. Cross Bayou, within the Tampa Bay Estuary System, has an

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3904Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams extensive oyster reef that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has described as nearly pristine, yet the water quality within this area does not come close to meeting these standards. Clearwater Harbor in St. Joseph's Sound, a 28,000-acre estuarine system on the county's Gulf Coast, supports over 17,000 acres of seagrass and extensive attached algae communities. The water clarity in this area is similar to tap water, yet this estuary may be subject to more stringent reductions. These are examples of three diverse ecosystems within one county in the state of Florida and demonstrates the problem with the proposed criteria. The criteria do not link the pollutant of concern to a biological response. The ecological variability between Tampa Bay, Cross Bayou and St. Joseph's Sound would lead local organizations to allocate their funding towards the site-specific alternative criteria process to correct the limitations and technical deficiencies of the proposed criteria. We would, therefore, be utilizing our very limited economic resources to correct these deficiencies instead of spending those funds in the groundwater quality improvement efforts. We need a technically sound basis for numeric nutrient criteria in Florida that takes into account the diversity of our water resources, criteria that are based on demonstrated sound scientific relationships between water quality and biological response. We are asking EPA to continue working with the state and local agencies to ensure that numeric nutrient criteria proposed for Florida will improve water quality, reflect our aquatic diversity and result in effective and efficient expenditure of public funds. 

# Comment ID 0771.001.005

Author Name: Hammond D. Organization: Entrix Fourth, concerning the DPV methodology in the SPARROW model, arbitrarily choosing a 50-percent reduction in anthropogenic nutrient loading to estuaries is not linked in any way to any biological response that would indicate the load is protective. In the case of Tampa Bay, data collected by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program indicates a protective TN load more than double that proposed by EPA, is protective of Tampa Bay based on the attainment of Chlorophyll a target levels and the measured increase in sea-grass coverage. DPV based on an inaccurate estimation of total nitrogen load cannot serve to be protective of designated uses of downstream estuaries. Protective loads to estuaries need to be based on a biological response indicator similar to those established for Tampa Bay. In my opinion, these concerns need to be addressed before scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria can be developed for streams in Florida. As it stands, the proposed rule significantly increase the number of streams deemed impaired forcing the 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 the need of the scarce water resource management manpower and funding. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0825.001.009

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3905Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Wilson-Davis L. Organization: City of Boca Raton The SPARROW model utilized to calculate standard for streams and canals does not account for the numerous nutrient sources nor groundwater influences, particularly in the canals of South Florida. 

# Comment ID 1288-1.001.008

Author Name: Barr D. Organization: Northwest Florida Water Management District The SPARROW model was apparently used by the EPA to determine the proposed nutrient concentration criteria. As noted by the USGS (authors of the model) and FDEP the SPARROW model is a large scale regional model not well suited to individual catchments and watersheds due to the coarse scale of input data. The examples of model inputs (provided in OFR 2008-1163) indicate attributes for model components (e.g. land use, impervious surface, precipitation, nutrient loading) are regionally scaled and not refined on to a watershed assessment. A limited review of the SPARROW model was conducted (see attachment B) but clearly more detail is needed before it could be applied to Northwest Florida conditions. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.027

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 5. The SPARROW model is too coarse, was calibrated to a very small data set, and is not an accurate representation of the conditions within Florida's estuaries and their tributaries. This essentially represents several steps backward in the TMDL efforts around the State on a WBID-by-WBID basis that FDEP and other agencies within Florida have been working on. 6. Valigura et al. (2000) conducted a preliminary comparison of SPARROW- derived estimates on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts and concluded that while SPARROW accurately predicted the mean loading to the estuaries as a group, "it did a poor job of predicting the load to any one particular estuary..." (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0140) 7. The determination of delivery ratios from upstream segments did not account for numerous key factors that may account for losses and were therefore unrealistic. 8. The current application of SPARROW has already resulted in the omission of 7 out of 23 estuaries (see Federal Register) due to model limitations related to canals, lack of data, etc. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.029

Author Name: Blanchard B.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3906Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 10. Application of the SPARROW model does not incorporate the best available information at local scales, using only 1:500,000-scale hydrography and estimated loads not always based on all available data for a watershed. A more appropriate application would utilize information already available, as for loadings to Tampa Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, among others, and more refined hydrography to calibrate the model. It is important to understand, however, that the model is used only because of the EPA assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries, and thus some method is used to derive protective loads. For those estuaries with empirical data indicating that protective loads are not being exceeded, and with technically sound and defensible estimates of what the protective loads are, application of SPARROW is not only superfluous but wasteful of resources as well. 

# Response

Comment IDs: All Response: EPA appreciates comments received regarding downstream protection of estuaries. EPA has deferred final rulemaking on downstream protection of estuaries to the Agency’s 2011 rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters. This decision is consistent with what EPA indicated in its proposed rule signed by the EPA Administrator on January 15, 2010: “At this time, EPA plans to take final action with respect to downstream protection values for nitrogen as part of the second phase of this rulemaking process in coordination with the proposal and finalization of numeric standards for estuarine and coastal waters in 2011” (p. 4208, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596, FRL-9105-1). This decision facilitates coordination with the development of proposed estuarine and coastal water quality criteria. EPA will consider these comments as it develops the proposed rule on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters due to be published in November 2011. EPA encourages commenters to consider providing comments on the 2011 proposed rule as part of that rulemaking process, which may reflect modifications to the downstream protection of estuaries approach described in the January 2010 proposed rule for Florida’s inland waters. On June 7, 2010, EPA and Plaintiffs filed a joint notice with the Court extending the deadlines for promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's estuaries and coastal waters, flowing waters in south Florida (including canals), and the downstream protection values for flowing waters into estuaries and coastal waters. The new deadlines are November 14, 2011 for proposing the criteria, and August 15, 2012 for publishing a final rule for these categories. This will allow EPA time to hold a public peer review by EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board of the scientific methodologies for estuarine and coastal criteria, flowing waters in south Florida, and downstream protection values for estuaries and coastal waters. 

# III.C.6.Q.11 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 11 Comment ID 0606-1.001.003

Author Name: Brown R.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3907Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium

• EPA's draft approach for determining protective loads to downstream estuaries is based on loading estimates from the SPARROW model developed by the US Geological Survey for two scenarios - existing and baseline. The estimates from these two scenarios are used to determine the protective loads to downstream estuaries. EPA states that all estuaries in Florida are either at or above their protective loads, therefore it is assumed that all estuaries, including Tampa Bay, require a load reduction in order to maintain the full aquatic life protection and uses. As demonstrated in the attached documentation and summarized above, Tampa Bay is currently maintaining full aquatic life protection and uses as evidenced by the maintenance and expansion of healthy seagrass beds, the estuarine-dependent fauna that inhabit them, and the critical phytoplankton-based food web.

• EPA's application of the SPARROW model to develop protective loads for the Tampa Bay estuary is not appropriate. The Tampa Bay NMC has developed quantitative relationships between nutrient loads and chlorophyll-a levels in Tampa Bay and EPA's development of protective loads using the SPARROW model does not take into account these dose-response relationships. The SPARROW model's intended purpose to examine landscape characteristics that influence the delivery of nitrogen from sources within the watershed in the Southeastern US is not appropriate for smaller basins where local data sources are readily available (as is the case for the Tampa Bay estuary). Lastly, the SPARROW estimates do not fully reflect the timevarying loads to an estuary and its resulting response to the loads. The protective loads for the Tampa Bay estuary, as defined by EPA's application of the SPARROW model, are normalized to hydrologic conditions of a single year (2002), and are thus inappropriate for accounting for variations in the Tampa Bay estuary's response to nutrient loads and hydrologic residence times. This is particularly evident in EPA's development of a single protective load for the Tampa Bay estuary, when the Tampa Bay NMC and other federal and state regulators have recognized the need to establish protective nutrient loads for each of the major bay segments of the Tampa Bay estuary. 

# Comment ID 0606-1.001.008

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium The Tampa Bay NMC has other concerns specifically with the application of the USGS Spatially Referenced Regression on Watershed Attributes (SPARROW) model for the Southeastern US in the Tampa Bay watershed. This model was used to calculate both existing and baseline loads for the Tampa Bay watershed and these values were then used to estimate the protective loads for the Tampa Bay estuary. While the SPARROW model may be appropriate for its expressed purpose (i.e., to examine landscape characteristics that influence delivery of nitrogen from sources withinthe watersheds in the Southeastern US), its application to the Tampa Bay watershed is questionable. While the peerreviewed load estimates developed by the Tampa Bay NMC are driven by local data sources (e.g., particularly point sources, atmospheric deposition, and product handling; Attachment T) the SPARROW coefficients are based on regional (southeastern US) data. Thus, the scaling of SPARROW to much smaller basins needs to be validated. Lastly, the SPARROW estimates do not fully reflect the time-varying loads to an estuary and its resulting ecosystem response to nutrient loads derived from the watershed. The protective loads for the Tampa Bay estuary, as defined by EPA's application of the SPARROW model, are normalized to hydrologic conditions of a single year (2002), and are

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3908Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams thus inappropriate for accounting for variations in the Tampa Bay estuary's ecosystem response to nutrient loads and hydrologic residence times. This is particularly evident in EPA's development of a single protective load for the Tampa Bay estuary, when the Tampa Bay NMC and other federal and state regulators have recognized the need to establish protective nutrient loads for each of the major bay segments of the Tampa Bay estuary. These significant concerns, as well as the successful demonstration of the approved nutrient management strategy employed in Tampa Bay, were repeatedly voiced at EPA's February 2010 listening sessions in Florida (e.g., Attachment U).

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3909Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0649.001.004

Author Name: Borkowski W. Organization: CF Industries Now after the SPARROW model, and this is a model built, initially, 20 years to look at the entire country. The southeast example that we can find in the literature includes from Mississippi to parts of North Carolina to parts of Florida through Georgia. It is not a model that is so specific that you go into a certain basin and establish with any sort of accuracy the types of numbers that are in the rule. And most importantly, your own regulations require -- and we've heard it time and time again as part of this process, that we've got to protect downstream waters. The regulation in 131 actually says that we have to look at the designated use and criterion in downstream waters. If that is the case, looking at your in-stream protective values, if those numbers are protective -- if they were established properly, they would be protective of downstream waters. You don't need the downstream protective values if you've adhered to your own regulation and made your in-stream protective values protective of downstream waters. So one of two things has got to be true, logically: The in-stream protective values are not protective, or the downstream protective values are not needed. And most importantly, the SPARROW model ignores the real world. Using the Tampa Bay estuary program as an example, that nitrogen management consortium group that's been working down in Tampa, of which CF is a member, has worked for years to understand the system and comply with an EPA-approved TMDL with very restrictive loads. Those loads are being met, chlorophyl targets are being met, and sea grasses are coming back in great abundance. Looking at the SPARROW model, you would have to reduce nutrient loads to Tampa Bay by nearly 50 percent. More importantly, in my last ten seconds, as the clock is going quickly, if you look at the event mean concentrations in Florida that have been developed by Harvey Harper and others who have been doing this for years, the downstream protective values, for example, for the Tampa Bay area, are about half of what you would expect in an event mean concentration for undisturbed plants. 

# Comment ID 0653.001.005

Author Name: Blancher II E. Organization: Sustainable Ecosystem Restoration LLC on behalf of CF Industries Regarding the overall application of the USGS SPARROW model, we note that the calculated nutrient loads from the SPARROW model are not compared to any response variable directly to see how the response variable relates to the loads. This deficiency does not allow a key comparison if the downstream protective values are to be used for regulatory purposes. In other words, EPA has abandoned the stressor response relationship for this application. Regarding the application of the USGS SPARROW model used by EPA, the State of Florida in comments made to EPA and USGS, has pointed out numerous technical deficiencies with the SPARROW model as applied to Florida, and these include inappropriate scale, reservoirs inappropriately treated as stream reaches. Incorrect transport times are predicted by the model, and many other areas exist in the current SPARROW implementation. I agree with FDEP in urging that if this model is to be for deriving loads, it must be rescaled to be a suitable application for Florida watersheds. It's using the wrong tool for the wrong job, similar to using a monkey wrench to fix a watch. We note that the USGS SPARROW model which was -- that USGS has even pointed out the application of SPARROW was to be developed to look at all southeastern systems, and it is not appropriate to be used for Florida stream comparisons. In

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3910Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams our opinion, EPA's failure to include such factors renders the currently proposed DPV approach, at best, incomplete and, at worst, erroneous science and is unsuitable for regulatory purposes. We intend to develop more extensive written comments addressing these issues and others and will submit them prior to the end of the comment period. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0654.001.004

Author Name: Durbin D. Organization: As we've heard several times today, I would agree that the SPARROW model, at least in its current form, is not adequate to derive these downstream protection values. It lacks sufficient spatial and temporal resolution. Using simply a 50 percent value of the nonatmospheric fraction as the target loading is completely arbitrary, which again means that the downstream protection values that are trying to protect estuaries are not logically linked to the protection of a designated use. Throughout my career, I've dealt with numeric water quality standards of various types and found them to be generally defensible and reasonable for our surface water protection, and I believe defensive nutrient criteria can be developed for Florida; but many of EPA's proposed values are not linked to designated uses and are at least arbitrary, if not dramatically and needlessly overprotective. Instead, I think these criteria will simply dilute our precious water resource management funding and manpower so that slower progress is actually made on some of the systems we saw photos of and we'll put more energy into systems that are not needing any of our restoration efforts. So in summary, I believe that more time and effort is absolutely essential to doing this correctly. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0704.001.003

Author Name: Glicksberg D. Organization: Hillsborough County Public Works Department The use of the SPARROW model for determining downstream protective loads is inappropriate for the State of Florida. Modelers with the U.S. Geological Survey and EPA's own science advisory committee have expressed concerns over its use for determining impairments in Florida, where we have large groundwater influence. It was designed for large regional watersheds such as the Mississippi River Basin and should not be used for determining nutrient loads to develop numeric nutrient criteria within Florida. EPA should incorporate the consideration of eliminating nutrient for a water body in the proposed rule. Failure to do so can result in entities being required to construct, operate and maintain expensive treatment facilities to reduce ambient concentrations of the nonlimiting nutrient in order to comply with the proposed numeric nutrient criteria without producing any measurable benefit. Again, this would be a terrible waste of our very limited physical resources. 

# Comment ID 0717.001.007

Author Name: Brown R.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3911Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Manatee County Natural Resources Department In closing, in addition to the estuaries already mentioned, I'd like to address some specific concerns we have regarding the proposed standards. First, the use -- the inappropriate use of the USGS SPARROW large scale regional model. Local or site-specific determination of downstream protective values is not appropriate for a model that was calibrated on a regional scale for source hydrology and lacking data of all sources of nitrogen input into the streams. 

# Comment ID 0769.001.003

Author Name: Mahan R. Organization: Orange-Co, Inc. And as I've looked at the proposed rules and regulations, a couple of concerns that I have that I've heard from people that I respect and believe that know -- a couple of examples would be the fact that -- I guess, Jim, you had mentioned the SPARROW model being used in setting some of the criteria, particularly the criteria for downstream estuary nutrient level numerical standards. My understanding is that the U.S. geological surveys indicated that the SPARROW model shouldn't be used when there is a significant groundwater impact on the water bodies being studied. And that being the case, that most of the water bodies in Florida have a significant impact from groundwater. I think that's something that needs to be looked into. 

# Comment ID 0933.001.010

Author Name: Collins J. Organization: 11. IVV. EPA is proposing use of a USGS model developed elsewhere for FL waters. At public metign it was mentioned that EPA, the users, and USGS, the developers AGREED that the model was appropriate and proper. Epa needs to contract for an INDEPENDENT verification and validation of their simulation model and asssumptions inherent therein. The users and developers will ALWAYS say their model is good and proper. That is why independent IVV is needed. Users and developers are too close and too invested in their model choice to be impartial, unbiased and believable. The public will NOT trust that EPA did their due diligience without IVV of the models. Such IVV can be conducted for 150 to 200k over a 4-6 month period. When compared to the Billion dollar cost over 10 years for this effort, the cost of IVV is well justified. Thanx for chance to comment, 

# Comment ID 0951.001.002

Author Name: Berry A. Organization: Hillsborough County Water Resource Services

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3912Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams The use of the SPARROW model for determining Downstream Protective Loads is inappropriate for the state of Florida. Modelers with the U.S . Geological Survey and EPA's own Science Advisory Committee have expressed concerns over its use for determining impairments in Florida. It was designed for large, regional watersheds such as the Mississippi River Basin, and should not be used for determining nutrient loads to develop numeric nutrient criteria within Florida. 

# Comment ID 1010.001.009

Author Name: Nelson B. Organization: City of Bonita Springs 3. USGS'S SPARROW EPA has proposed a methodology to calculate criteria for stream set flow into estuaries and provide for their protection, but not have concluded that the downstream protection value methodology will work. In the proposed rule EPA estimates that the total nitrogen loads in estuaries across Florida will vary approximately 25 - fold. As pointed out on page 4201-02: EPA did not develop loading targets for the seven estuarine water bodies in south Florida (Caloosahatchee ...) because requisite information related to TN loading from the highly managed canals and waterways cannot be derived from SAGT-SPARROW and were not available otherwise, ... These concerns include known limitations of the SPARROW model, particularly related to inadequate resolution of complex hydrology in several parts of the State. While EPA may acknowledge that other approaches and models may also provide defensible estimates of protective loads, the proposed rule does not suggest such ability, leaving optimistic speculation for obtaining permits at best and at worst, inability to obtain permits because a Rule is in place with no support by science. Such action becomes confiscatory and during these times, creates an impermissible development delays and de facto moratorium. The concern Bonita Springs' shares with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is that the proposed model, the United States Geological Services SPARROW, will not work in areas where there are significant groundwater inputs and sites specific with determination of downstream protection values. In other words, the model was calibrated on a regional scale was very imprecise suppositions, whereas water monitoring in this area may provide different results. 

# Comment ID 1067.001.004

Author Name: Carter K. Organization: South Florida Water Management District We feel the EPA has actually taken a step in the right direction by reevaluating the SPARROW model. That was one area of the rule where we felt needed more time, and we appreciate you deferring that until next year.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3913Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 1098-3.001.008

Author Name: Vance A. Organization: City of Bonita Springs 3. USGS'S SPARROW EPA has proposed a methodology to calculate criteria for stream set flow into estuaries and provide for their protection, but not have concluded that the downstream protection value methodology will work. In the proposed rule EPA estimates that the total nitrogen loads in estuaries across Florida will vary approximately 25 - fold. As pointed out on page 4201-02: EPA did not develop loading targets for the seven estuarine water bodies in south Florida (Caloosahatchee ...) because requisite information related to TN loading from the highly managed canals and waterways cannot be derived from SAGT-SPARROW and were not available otherwise, ... These concerns include known limitations of the SPARROW model, particularly related to inadequate resolution of complex hydrology in several parts of the State. While EPA may acknowledge that other approaches and models may also provide defensible estimates of protective loads, the proposed rule does not suggest such ability, leaving optimistic speculation for obtaining permits at best and at worst, inability to obtain permits because a Rule is in place with no support by science. Such action becomes confiscatory and during these times, creates an impermissible development delays and de facto moratorium. The concern Bonita Springs' shares with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is that the proposed model, the United States Geological Services SPARROW, will not work in areas where there are significant groundwater inputs and sites specific with determination of downstream protection values. In other words, the model was calibrated on a regional scale was very imprecise suppositions, whereas water monitoring in this area may provide different results. 

# Comment ID 1217-2.001.025

Author Name: Voyles J. Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC 7. Mosaic Comments on Downstream Protective Values EPA had originally proposed Downstream Protective Values ("DPVs") to protect downstream estuarine waters as part of this rulemaking, but has since announced that it will delay any DPV proposal related to estuaries until the second phase of this rulemaking related to estuarine and coastal waters in 2011. Mosaic nevertheless offers these preliminary comments for EPA's consideration when it turns its attention to the 2011 rulemaking. These comments do not constitute Mosaic's final comments on this topic, and we intend to review carefully EPA's proposals in the 2011 rulemaking and to offer additional comments at that time.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3914Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams EPA's DPV approach as set forth in the proposed Rule is fundamentally flawed for several reasons: 1) the DPVs are inconsistent with and would disrupt the multi-stakeholder, scientific work already conducted in setting water quality levels to achieve specific estuary protection; 2) the DPVs are based on arbitrary and incorrect assumptions about the level of load reduction necessary to protect downstream estuaries; 3) the DPVs ignore the concept of a limiting nutrient; and 4) the DPVs were developed applying a model that uses oversimplified and incorrect assumptions about stream conditions and the fraction of TN delivered, thus overstating the level of upstream load reduction necessary to achieve estuarine health.

a. EPA's DPVs are Inconsistent with the Already Established Estuary Protection Processes In Florida, regulatory procedures already exist to protect the water quality of estuaries. These processes do not use EPA's DPV approach, but instead assess individually the biological health of an estuary and determine if its designated uses are being met. If an estuary is meeting its designated uses, the existing load to the estuary is, at a minimum, protective of those uses. In such a case, upstream loads can be allocated based on this existing load, and such load allocation and estuary target load serve the same function as a DPV. National Estuary Programs that serve the purpose of protecting designated uses have been established by EPA for most of the southwest coast of Florida, specifically: 1) Tampa Bay; 2) Sarasota Bay; and 3) Charlotte Harbor. The programs have determined that these estuaries are healthy and maintaining designated uses. The foundation of these determinations is the scientifically-grounded, resource-based analyses by the agencies that concluded that seagrasses are the keystone species for determining the biologic health of the estuary. All three of these estuary programs have determined that the health of each estuary can best be ascertained by measurement of submerged aquatic vegetation (seagrasses). Both Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor continue to implement management projects to improve seagrass coverage. Tampa Bay has a target of 95% of the seagrass acreage existing in 1950 (allowing for historical dredge and fill operations that permanently removed some seagrass acreage). Tampa Bay seagrasses are continuing to be measured and are continuing to expand in acreage.[64] The Tampa Bay Estuary Program ("TBEP"), established in 1990, has developed specific, science-based nitrogenloading and chlorophyll a target levels for Tampa Bay that are designed to protect and restore seagrasses, the bioindicator of a healthy estuarine ecosystem. Research by the TBEP and other area scientists determined that seagrasses were limited in Tampa Bay by the amount of light reaching them. An empirical model was used to define the relationships between total nitrogen loads and chlorophyll a concentrations, and between chlorophyll a concentrations and light attenuation. Based on the results of rigorous modeling, it was determined that seagrass restoration goals could be met by constraining external nitrogen loads.[65] The nitrogen loadings identified as protective for the bay by the TBEP were ultimately adopted as a TMDL by EPA.[66] The TMDL for Tampa Bay was allocated to four bay segments: Old Tampa Bay; Hillsborough Bay; Middle Tampa Bay; and Lower Tampa Bay. EPA, by adopting the nitrogen loading limits as a TMDL, agreed that these limits were protective of the designated uses of Tampa Bay.[67] EPA's numeric nutrient criteria Rule provides no basis to conclude that these prior determinations, endorsed by EPA, should be supplanted by the DPVs proposed in the Rule. The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program ("CHNEP"), established in 1995, is in the process of adopting numeric water quality targets. The CHNEP consists of a number of estuarine water bodies with different requirements. The CHNEP determined that seagrasses remain the keystone species for maintaining designated uses and that light is the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3915Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams critical parameter for seagrass success. Light attenuation in Charlotte Harbor estuaries is controlled by chlorophyll a, turbidity, and colored dissolved organic matter ("CDOM"). (This is in contrast to light attenuation controlled predominately by chlorophyll a in Tampa Bay.)[68] The CHNEP is currently finalizing a report that will establish chlorophyll a, turbidity, and CDOM limits in each of its estuarine water bodies. When final, the Charlotte Harbor analysis, together with other work already completed, will provide a scientific basis for establishing an estuary protection program, in contrast to the generic presumptive criteria set in EPA's proposed DPVs. It will be based on estuary-specific data, identify estuary specific indicators of biologic health, and reflect "peer-review" by a large number of local scientific experts.[69] Since the limits being established for the Charlotte Harbor estuaries will be protective of the bay's designated uses and include loads from freshwater tributaries to the bay, the loading limits for the tributary streams will provide the protection that EPA supposedly is seeking in its proposed DPVs. These results should be recognized by EPA as the pertinent estuarine nutrient criteria for DPV purposes in these watersheds. Similar research and analysis efforts for estuaries throughout the State should also be recognized, given their superior scientific rigor over EPA's generic presumptions, and should be adopted by EPA as the pertinent estuarine nutrient criteria. This is especially true for estuaries that are meeting designated uses and have documented healthy seagrasses. b. The DPVs are Based on Arbitrary and Incorrect Assumptions About the Level of Load Reduction Necessary to Protect Downstream Estuaries In contrast to the foregoing site-specific proceedings that have yielded scientifically-based conclusions regarding the biological health of particular estuaries and the nutrient loads needed to maintain the estuarine health, EPA's DPVs use generic, across-the-board assumptions to prescribe the protective loads that it has chosen as the basis for its DPVs. Significantly, EPA does not analyze the biological needs of any specific estuaries in Florida to ascertain load reduction targets; it merely assumes that some TN reduction is necessary and that a 50% reduction in anthropogenic sources of nitrogen was the correct target. In fact, the TBEP evaluation, based on the processes summarized above, analyzed the health of the seagrass population and concluded that (i) the current TN loads are protective of the seagrass population, and (ii) the streams contributing to the TN load to the estuary must be managed to ensure that there is no increase in the TN load.[70] These comprehensive, approved proceedings demonstrate that for these watersheds, since protective loads have already been established, superseding DPVs are unnecessary and unwarranted. EPA's Rule offers no proof or reasoning to the contrary. Solution: DPVs Should Not Apply to Tampa Bay or Charlotte Harbor Tributaries Mosaic urges EPA to provide that watersheds with established TMDLs, Reasonable Assurance Documents or other equivalent findings should not be subject to future DPV requirements. Specifically, the Rule should be amended as follows: 131.43(c)(2)(iii)(D). The requirements of paragraph (A) do not apply to any stream segment where the State and EPA have approved a TMDL pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d), where the State has proposed and EPA has approved a

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3916Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Reasonable Assurance Determination governing estuary load allocations for nutrients, or where any other program for estuary load reduction approved by EPA prior to the effective date of this Rule has already so provided or determined load allocations or similar protective standards. 131.43(c)(2)(iii)(E). The standards, criteria or controls applicable to any stream segment governed by a TMDL pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d), a Reasonable Assurance Document, or any other program for estuary load allocations for nutrients approved by EPA after the effective date of this Rule shall constitute the DPVs for such waters for purposes of paragraph (A).

c. The Proposed DPVs Ignore the Concept of a Limiting Nutrient In addition, the DPVs presume that criteria need to be established for both TN and TP for all waters in the State. This approach ignores the well-documented existence of Florida waters in which (a) either nitrogen or phosphorus is controlling phytoplankton growth (and is therefore the limiting nutrient), and (b) the other nutrient is in such abundance that it does not impact phytoplankton growth. Some obvious and widespread examples are the areas in Florida where significant phosphate reserves exist. Establishing a numeric nutrient limit when one is unnecessary will only lead to costly reduction measures that produce little or no associated benefits. There are numerous waters in the State where EPA has previously recognized this limiting nutrient concept, such as in EPA's own listing of TMDLs proposed by EPA.[71] A review of more than 100 TMDLs proposed by EPA in Florida shows that 20% are to be controlled only for nitrogen. Since TMDLs are required to restore impaired waters and maintain designated uses, the EPA TMDL program clearly recognizes that some waters are limited by either nitrogen or phosphorus, but not by both, and limits for both nutrients are unnecessary to protect designated uses and comply with the Clean Water Act. The TBEP has recognized for many years that Tampa Bay was nitrogen limited. The development of water quality targets, bioassay experiments, empirically-derived nutrient-response relationships, and water quality modeling simulations indicated that controlling nitrogen loads to the bay should be the primary watershed management focus to limit phytoplankton production and allow for improvements in Bay water clarity. These prior studies clearly established that nitrogen loads were the limiting nutrient in the Tampa Bay estuary and that phosphorus loadings to the bay from the enriched Bone Valley region were not impactful. d. The DPVs Were Developed Using a Model That is Not Appropriate For This Purpose The DPVs are also flawed because they rely on a model application that is ill-suited for this purpose. EPA used the USGS-developed USGS SAGT-SPARROW ("SPARROW") model to determine, based on an average level of load to an estuary contributed from sources at various distances from the estuary, an allocation of nitrogen concentrations at each stream section. While SPARROW may be useful in certain contexts, as used by EPA for the proposed DPVs, this model application does not provide sufficiently detailed analyses to generate results useful for load or concentration allocations by stream reach. Because SPARROW as used by EPA does not provide fine resolution by stream segment, it tends to overstate the fraction of TN delivered to the estuary, and consequently will establish unduly-restrictive DPVs for these streams and stream segments. Estimating natural attenuation of nutrients is complex and site-specific. The coarse resolution of this

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3917Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams modeling approach, reliant upon stream size-dependent denitrification alone for estimating attenuation, produces a great potential for overly-restrictive DPVs by underestimating in-stream losses of nutrients, especially considering the large amount of wetlands in Florida. This analysis is verified by comparing the conclusions of SPARROW to a robust dataset collected by Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission for the Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers. This dataset shows that the estimated fraction delivered is far more variable within each river system than the SPARROW model predicts. In order to predict more accurately the fraction of TN delivered to an estuary, SPARROW should be improved to include more detailed stream reach size and land use classification information. The lack of model refinement is also evident in the nutrient source classifications, in which "atmospheric loads" are assumed to be the only non-anthropogenic source of TN, and therefore the only source not subject to load reductions needed to calculate DPVs. Before concentration reductions are reflexively mandated for a water body on the basis of a wholly arbitrary "50% reduction of anthropogenic sources of TN" criterion, the existing water quality of each specific reach should be considered first. Though EPA asserts that "[m]easuring instream loss rates at the appropriate time and space scale is exceedingly difficult, and it is not possible to do State-wide," 75 Fed. Reg. 4,202, Mosaic respectfully suggests the assertion isincorrect. The detailed stream reach data does exist to render SPARROW far more accurate in establishing streamspecific loads and fraction-delivered values; EPA chose not to load this data into SPARROW, perhaps because of the additional time it would have taken for USGS to reprogram SPARROW. However, the estuary criteria rulemaking is not scheduled until January of 2011. Plainly, there is ample time to reload or reconstruct SPARROW to enable it to generate loading results based on actual stream conditions. Additionally, the base model for SPARROW only explains 68% of the variance in TN yield. USGS states that "the unexplained variance can be attributed to errors in the input data sets, errors in model specification (structure or selection of explanatory variables), errors in the monitored yield estimates, or some combination of these errors."[72] A 32% margin of error is significant, and it is possible that the error for Florida alone could be higher than in SPARROW overall. Put differently, it is possible based on the results of this analysis that reducing all wastewater discharges to zero will have no appreciable impact on downstream loading, if most of the load comes from other sources such as sediment, atmospheric, and non-point source loads. Or, it is possible that reduction of point sources to zero would have negligible biological effects, since the nutrient reductions are being applied in many instances to waters of the State that already exhibit good water quality. If a regulated discharger, such as Mosaic, were to propose a permit limit or an alternate criteria to the State based on a modeling approach with this level of uncertainty, the proposal would be summarily dismissed. EPA should hold itself to the same standards of accuracy and reliability it expects of others. Finally, we note that EPA's approach to DPVs, and specifically its reliance on the SPARROW model to set them, is unprecedented and departs radically from other methods of watershed protection under the Clean Water Act. This methodology has not been used before for this purpose. It has not been subject to review by a Science Advisory Board. The specific proposal contained in the Rule was not subject to peer review. The peer review contained in the Docket reviewed a different document, "Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's Inland Waters,"[73] which contained only a cursory and general description of the DPV approach and the use of SPARROW, not the calculations upon which EPA relied in its proposed DPVs. Mosaic supports EPA's decision to submit to independent peer review the application of SPARROW for use in deriving DPVs. Solution: Only Apply DPVs Where There is An Actual Need; Use TMDLs or Other Approved Load Allocation Processes

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3918Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Instead of DPVs There is no justification to require massive reductions in upstream freshwater loads and freshwater concentrations in order to "protect" downstream estuaries that are healthy and meeting designated uses, particularly where established load limitations at the estuary boundary are being met. Further, it is similarly unjustified to establish upstream freshwater instream concentrations and/or load limits when loading limits have been established at the boundary to the estuary and are being met. This is especially so when peer-reviewed, multi-stakeholder processes have concluded that no load reduction is necessary. EPA should only set DPVs if it affirmatively determines that load reductions are actually needed in specific estuaries and, if so, the extent of such reductions. EPA should expressly recognize more rigorous estuary-specific analyses, such as those accomplished by TBEP and CHNEP, to constitute the relevant DPVs for those watersheds without following the cumbersome and multi-step SSAC process required under the Rule. See proposed 40 C.F.R. § 131.43(c)(2)(C). Mosaic advocates that EPA amend the Rule to provide that where there is an approved TMDL or an equivalent process that has set approved estuarine and upstream target loads, the designated loads would apply in lieu of a DPV, and that any future approved load allocation process similarly substitute for a DPV. (Mosaic's specific suggestions for Rule language on this issue are provided above). Solution: Recalculate, Review and Peer-Review SPARROW In light of the above concerns, a more credible scientific basis for DPVs minimally requires EPA to do several things: First, SPARROW should be rerun with more detailed stream reach GIS files that will provide more accurate delivery fractions for small streams, additional regions in Florida should be defined for regionally-specific parameters that may affect nutrient uptake predictions, and alternative measurements that include more spatial and temporal variability should be obtained from SPARROW to replace entire estuary annual average estimates of load. Second, to address the unusually large (32%) margin of error for the overall SPARROW model, EPA should publish the verification and validation of the Florida portion of the SPARROW model run and invite interested stakeholders to critique how well the model predicted conditions in the State. If the model calibration and verification shows significant error in prediction for Florida systems, SAGT-SPARROW should be reduced to a Florida-only model, and all calibration, verification, and regionally-specific parameters should be re-evaluated. Third, EPA should use watershed load estimates for several years (or the detrended load estimate for 2002) bounded by confidence intervals to give a range of conditions on which to base a broader criteria. Fourth, EPA should use load reduction targets based on actual estuary-specific needs, determined through existing multi-stakeholder processes rather than the arbitrary across-the-board reduction targets used in the Rule. All of this can be timely and properly accomplished prior to EPA's completion of the second phase (estuary) of the rulemaking in 2011. In the 2010 proposed rulemaking, EPA specifically sought comment on "the DPV approach, the technical merit of the estimated protective loadings, and the technical merit of the method for calculating stream reach values" as well as on "other scientifically defensible approaches for ensuring protection of designated uses in estuaries." 75 Fed. Reg. 4,208. Mosaic hopes the foregoing comments are seen by EPA as directly responsive to that request.

[64] See documents listed in Attachment 8.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3919Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams [65] Id. [66] See U.S. E.P.A. Region 4, Decision Document for Technical Approval/Disapproval of TMDL Submittal for Tampa Bay, Florida; June 18, 1998 (provided as Attachment 9). [67] See generally, id. [68] Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, "Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) Update 2008", page 79; available at http://www.chnep.org/CCMP/CCMP2008.pdf [69] Id. [70] See Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium, Final 2009 Reasonable Assurance Addendum: Allocation & Assessment Report, January 22, 2010, pages 7 and Appendix A.14. [71] See http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/florida/index.html [72] Hoos A.B. And G. McMahon. USGS. 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. Process. (2009) John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [73] EPA Docket: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-000-9



# Comment ID 1296-1.001.006

Author Name: Drew H. Organization: Wood Cellulose Manufacturing Secondly, Buckeye, through its consultant, HydroQual, Inc., found the USGS SPARROW model used by EPA has inaccurately modeled the current TN loading to Apalachee Bay. HydroQual, Inc. compared EPA's output files from SPARROW for the reference Econfma system and found it to only contain approximately two-thirds of the long term load estimate that was backcalculated from approximately 60 years of flow data using a nutrient-flow relationship. So, as proposed in the rule, if the Econfina River estuary error is representative of the rest of the analysis for Apalachee Bay, the proposed DPV for Apalachee Bay is based upon a load that is approximately 30% lower than an estimate based on site-specific data. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.008

Author Name: Barnes F.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3920Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division 4-2) The proposed criteria for protection of downstream estuaries are not scientifically valid. The criteria are based on the misapplication of the USGS SPARROW model. The model is calibrated at a regional scale, uses a course hydrology, and does not account for groundwater inputs, which are significant in many areas of Florida. Furthermore, the SPARROW models do not use a biological response to determine the criteria. It was assumed that all Florida estuaries are currently impaired, since the criteria are based on the midpoint between the current load and background load. However, existing bioligical data and research by Florida DEP indicates this is not true. The proposed downstream protection values, which will result in unnecessarily more stringent criteria than the instream protection values, will apply to all streams within the watershed. To illustrate this point, Florida DEP estimated that over 80% of Florida's "reference" or pristine sites would exceed the downstream protection value criteria and would be deemed impaired. 

# Comment ID 1354-1.001.004

Author Name: Tompkins H. Organization: St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners The county should not be held responsible for loads over which it has no jurisdictional control as part of the Clean Water Act. Atmoshpheric deposition and agricultural runoff are potentially significant sources of surface water nitrogen and other pollutants within the Lower St Johns River watershed. We request equitable assessment and regulation of these pollution sources. The current Lower St. Johns River Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) notes that "atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is an important source in the Lower St. Johns River Basin, and the modeling used to develop the TMDL included estimates of the nitrogen load based on regional deposition rate data." Atmospheric deposition in Florida is not adequately characterized in the USGS SPARROW model that was used to develop the numeric nutrient criteria. There are large power generation facilities located along the St. Johns River and the Northeast Florida Region near St. Johns County. We would like to see specific consideration given to quantifying the pollutant load reductions associated with installation of air pollution controls at a Seminold Electric power generation facility were quantified and incorporated into the BMAP. 

# Comment ID 1355-1.001.007

Author Name: Barker V. Organization: Brevard County Board of County Commissioners Modeling: SPARROW model inputs are insufficient for how EPA is proposing to apply its results in Florida. EPA must demonstrate that the model provides reasonable results for the scale and conditions under which it is being applied by the rule. EPA must also demonstrate a clear linkage between nutrients and canal health/ecosystem function. 

# Comment ID 1615-1.001.015

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3921Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Public Works Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: EPA proposes to use the South Atlantic Gulf and Tennessee (SAGT) version of the USGS SPARROW model to determine the downstream protection value (DPV) for total nitrogen in Florida estuaries. EPA questions the use of this method for total phosphorus in estuaries, yet many of the Florida estuaries are phosphorus limited. This comment reflects also on its applicability to the control of total nitrogen as well. Furthermore, the model uses only 4 classes of nitrogen inflows: fertilizer, manure, urban point source and atmospheric. Fertilizer and manure were estimated "from county level fertilizer sales, census of agriculture and population estimates." From EPA's TMDL website, sources of pollutant loading to national waters (not all nutrient related) include (in order of square miles threatened for estuaries and embayments): municipal discharges/sewage, atmospheric deposition, unknown, natural/wildlife, industrial, agricultural, hydromodification, other, habitat alteration, urban-related runoff, unspecified nonpoint sources, resource extraction, recreational boating and a host of others with much smaller impacts. Recent studies of Tampa Bay nitrogen loading (Hillsborough River portion) showed that from 1972 to 2007, average loading was: 53.8% from nonpoint sources, 16.9% from domestic point sources, 11.5% from industrial point sources, 9% from springs and groundwater, 5.9 % from atmospheric deposition and 2.8% from material losses (basically industrial spills near the estuary) [source: Tampa Bay 2009 Reasonable Assurance Update]. It is clear that the 4 categories used by EPA do not reflect the diversity of sources identified by EPA itself, nor relatively easily obtained data for the larger Florida estuaries. Furthermore, EPA states on page 105 that the atmospheric load is "in all cases less, and often much less, than the measured deposition ... " so that to fully represent the total load of nitrogen in estuaries, one of the other 3 categories must be overstated to account for the misrepresentation of atmospheric loads. 

# Comment ID 1615-1.001.016

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Public Works Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: EPA proposes to set the interim acceptable load to estuaries by stating that the acceptable load is between the current load and the natural load (as predicted by SPARROW). EPA states on page 105: "The protective TN load should be less than the current load and greater than the background load." This clearly assumes that the current load is not acceptable. As a counter-example, the current load has been adopted by EPA as the TMDL in Tampa Bay and for the last 20 years, grass bed coverage in Tampa Bay have been steadily improving proving the validity of the TMDL. Yet EPA's proposed method computes "the protective TN load by reducing the current TN load by one half of the anthropogenic contribution to that load" (page 107). Therefore, with an overestimate of non-atmospheric contribution (see comment above) and the reduction of anthropomorphic loads by 50%, Tampa Bay's TN load would have to be significantly reduced using EPA's approach even though the resources to be protected (grass beds) have been improving with existing loading. This one example shows that the method may be invalid, if not harmful. 

# Response

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3922Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Comment IDs: All Response: EPA appreciates comments received regarding downstream protection of estuaries. EPA has deferred final rulemaking on downstream protection of estuaries to the Agency’s 2011 rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters. This decision is consistent with what EPA indicated in its proposed rule signed by the EPA Administrator on January 15, 2010: “At this time, EPA plans to take final action with respect to downstream protection values for nitrogen as part of the second phase of this rulemaking process in coordination with the proposal and finalization of numeric standards for estuarine and coastal waters in 2011” (p. 4208, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596, FRL-9105-1). This decision facilitates coordination with the development of proposed estuarine and coastal water quality criteria. EPA will consider these comments as it develops the proposed rule on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters due to be published in November 2011. EPA encourages commenters to consider providing comments on the 2011 proposed rule as part of that rulemaking process, which may reflect modifications to the downstream protection of estuaries approach described in the January 2010 proposed rule for Florida’s inland waters. On June 7, 2010, EPA and Plaintiffs filed a joint notice with the Court extending the deadlines for promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's estuaries and coastal waters, flowing waters in south Florida (including canals), and the downstream protection values for flowing waters into estuaries and coastal waters. The new deadlines are November 14, 2011 for proposing the criteria, and August 15, 2012 for publishing a final rule for these categories. This will allow EPA time to hold a public peer review by EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board of the scientific methodologies for estuarine and coastal criteria, flowing waters in south Florida, and downstream protection values for estuaries and coastal waters. 

# III.C.6.B.III - COMPUTING DOWNSTREAM PROTECTION VALUES (DPVS) No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary.


# III.C.6.NODA2 - NODA FOR DPV CALCULATIONS No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

# III.C.6.Q.12 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 12 Comment ID 1615-1.001.018

Author Name: Dinneen J. Organization: Volusia County Public Works

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3923Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Item III.C(6)(b) - Downstream Protection of Estuaries: EPA's approach distributes the acceptable load to stream reaches based on the fraction of TN delivered to the estuary which, in turn, is based on the fraction of tributary flow into the estuary. For simplicity, EPA chose to create 6 bins of Fraction Delivered: 0-50%, 51-60%,61-70%, 71-80%, 81-90% and 91-100%, where each bin is represented by the high end of the bin. Therefore, the minimum Fraction Delivered is 50%, meaning that 50% of the flux on TN in the downstream node is delivered to the estuary even if the actual amount is 0%. EPA states that this was done to reduce the "number of unique DPVs from thousands to less than 100" (page 113). This does reduce the number of unique values but does not increase its validity - in fact, it reduces the applicability of the method. 

# Response

Comment ID: 1615-1.001.018 Response: EPA appreciates comments received regarding downstream protection of estuaries. EPA has deferred final rulemaking on downstream protection of estuaries to the Agency’s 2011 rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters. This decision is consistent with what EPA indicated in its proposed rule signed by the EPA Administrator on January 15, 2010: “At this time, EPA plans to take final action with respect to downstream protection values for nitrogen as part of the second phase of this rulemaking process in coordination with the proposal and finalization of numeric standards for estuarine and coastal waters in 2011” (p. 4208, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596, FRL-9105-1). This decision facilitates coordination with the development of proposed estuarine and coastal water quality criteria. EPA will consider these comments as it develops the proposed rule on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters due to be published in November 2011. EPA encourages commenters to consider providing comments on the 2011 proposed rule as part of that rulemaking process, which may reflect modifications to the downstream protection of estuaries approach described in the January 2010 proposed rule for Florida’s inland waters. On June 7, 2010, EPA and Plaintiffs filed a joint notice with the Court extending the deadlines for promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's estuaries and coastal waters, flowing waters in south Florida (including canals), and the downstream protection values for flowing waters into estuaries and coastal waters. The new deadlines are November 14, 2011 for proposing the criteria, and August 15, 2012 for publishing a final rule for these categories. This will allow EPA time to hold a public peer review by EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board of the scientific methodologies for estuarine and coastal criteria, flowing waters in south Florida, and downstream protection values for estuaries and coastal waters. 

# III.C.6.B.IV - EPA DOWNSTREAM PROTECTION VALUES No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary.


# III.C.6.B.V - APPLICATION OF DPVS FOR DOWNSTREAM ESTUARY PROTECTION No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3924Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams


# III.C.6.Q.13 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 13 No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

# III.C.6.Q.14 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 14 No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary. 

# III.C.6.Q.15 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 15 Comment ID 0606-1.001.001

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback regarding site-specific analyses for the Tampa Bay estuary that should be used instead of the general approach identified in the Proposed Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009- 0596). The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) requests that EPA finalize the Tampa Bay NMC's Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) loads (specified for each major bay segment in the table below), as the protective loads used in determining downstream protective values (DPVs) for flowing waters and as the protective Estuarine Nutrient Criteria for the Tampa Bay estuary. Because development of criteria for estuarine and coastal waters directly affects the determination of DPVs, the NMC recommends that EPA finalize nutrient criteria in flowing waters as part of the second phase of this rulemaking process in coordination with the proposal and finalization of numeric criteria for estuarine and coastal waters that is anticipated to occur in 2011. Original comment letter contains additional information in the table on page 1 of the PDF regarding bay segments of Tampa Bay from the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. See original comment letter. The Tampa Bay NMC is a public-private partnership that includes federal and state regulators, local governments, and key-industry stakeholders (see footnote 1 for Consortium participants). The Tampa Bay NMC has developed a nutrient management strategy over the past quarter century in Tampa Bay that has maintained TN and TP loads at levels that provide full aquatic life protection and support designated uses in Tampa Bay, as demonstrated in the attached documentation. Tampa Bay's scientific determination of appropriate nutrient loads to support healthy seagrass beds

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3925Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams and encourage seagrass expansion has been peer-reviewed through publication of scientific journal articles and reviewed and accepted by EPA and FDEP to be protective loads for the Tampa Bay estuary. Existing TN and TP loads to Tampa Bay are currently providing a balance of adequate water clarity for healthy and expanding seagrass beds, and adequate phytoplankton production to support the bay's fish and wildlife populations. The adaptive nutrient management strategy developed for the Tampa Bay estuary through this stakeholder-initiated process has led to documented water quality improvements and the protection of full aquatic life support in Tampa Bay. As was requested in the official docket by EPA, the attached documentation provides an alternative resource-based approach to address protection of downstream water quality that attains and maintains the State's designated uses in the Tampa Bay estuary. In summary, the use of the Tampa Bay NMC's requested TN and TP loads as the basis for numeric criteria in the Tampa Bay estuary are recommended for the following reasons:

• Water quality thresholds in the Tampa Bay estuary have largely been met since 1992 (79% of the time) and has led to the expansion of seagrass by more than 4,800 acres. These thresholds were met by maintaining the federally-approved nitrogen TMDL for Tampa Bay.

• Designated uses for Tampa Bay have been met and led to full support of the phytoplankton-based food web for Tampa Bay, as evidenced by stable/increasing populations of phytoplankton-feeding baitfish species and nesting populations of birds that feed on baitfish species (e.g. pelicans and terns). These designated uses were met by maintaining the federally-approved nitrogen TMDL for Tampa Bay.

• Full aquatic life protection and support for the designated uses for the Tampa Bay estuary have been met with the existing TP loads. Multiple lines of scientific evidence indicate that TP is not limiting productivity in the estuarine waters of Tampa Bay. 

# Comment ID 0606-1.001.004

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium As summarized above, there is considerable evidence that existing loads to the major bay segments of Tampa Bay provide for the full aquatic life protection and support for all designated uses in the estuary and are therefore within its assimilative capacity for nutrients. Thank you again for EPA's willingness to accept alternative resource-based approaches to address protection of downstream water quality that attains and maintains the State's designated uses in the Tampa Bay estuary. The Tampa Bay NMC looks forward to working with EPA to ensure that appropriate numeric nutrient criteria are finalized for the Tampa Bay estuary in EPA's promulgation of water quality standards for lakes, flowing waters, and estuaries in the State of Florida. If you require additional documentation and supporting materials for the docket to ensure that the above, proposed criteria are promulgated in EPA's final rules, please contact Holly Greening at the Tampa Bay Estuary Program directly 

# Comment ID 0606-1.001.005

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3926Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium Summary The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) asserts that the nutrient loads approved by EPA and FDEP as regulatory goals for Tampa Bay are more appropriate than EPA's draft protective loads for the Tampa Bay estuary and provide for the full aquatic life protection and support for all designated uses in the estuary. Furthermore, the Tampa Bay NMC requests that EPA finalize the Tampa Bay estuary's protective loads when establishing downstream protective values for flowing waters in the Tampa Bay watershed as part of the second phase of this rulemaking process in coordination with the proposal and finalization of numeric criteria for estuarine and coastal waters that is anticipated to occur in 2011. 

# Comment ID 0606-1.001.006

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 1. Introduction This paper provides comments from the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) on the protective loads proposed for the Tampa Bay estuary in EPA's draft numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing waters in the State of Florida (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596). And, as was requested by EPA in the draft rule, this document and supporting attachments serve to provide EPA with an alternative, resource-based approach to address protection of downstream water quality that attains and maintains the State's designated uses in the Tampa Bay estuary. Tampa Bay NMC approach that has established state and federally-approved nutrient loading targets for the estuary follows EPA's technical guidance that quantitative stressor-response relationships are the most preferred methodology in establishing numeric nutrient criteria. Multiple lines of empirical evidence justify maintaining existing total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) loads to the Tampa Bay estuary. Water quality and clarity in the Bay has improved tremendously since significant management actions were initiated starting in the 1980s, seagrass acreage has increased to the highest levels observed since the 1950s and continues to increase, and economicallyimportant fish and wildlife populations have been maintained since routine monitoring programs began in the 1990s. The Tampa Bay NMC thanks EPA for recognizing that, for particular estuaries, sitespecific analyses should be used instead of EPA's general approach for establishing protective estuarine loads and downstream protective values in the final lakes, flowing waters, and estuaries rules. We believe the documentation provided in this public comment clearly shows that the analyses conducted by the Tampa Bay NMC provide a defensible and protective alternative for inclusion in the final numeric nutrient criteria for lakes, flowing waters and estuaries in the State of Florida. Based on these findings, the Tampa Bay NMC requests that EPA acknowledge that existing TN and TP loads to the Tampa Bay estuary are appropriate and defensible protective loads. The Tampa Bay NMC recommends that EPA finalize the Tampa Bay estuary's protective loads when establishing downstream protective values for flowing waters in

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3927Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams the Tampa Bay watershed as part of the second phase of this rulemaking process in coordination with the proposal and finalization of numeric criteria for estuarine and coastal waters that is anticipated to occur in 2011. The Tampa Bay NMC is providing this technical feedback to EPA to: 1. describe the improvements in the Tampa Bay ecosystem in response to the development and implementation of an adaptive nutrient management strategy for the Tampa Bay estuary; 2. describe the adaptive nutrient management strategy developed by the stakeholder-driven process spearheaded by the Tampa Bay NMC and facilitated by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP); 3. demonstrate that appropriate protective loads for the Tampa Bay estuary should be established to maintain TN and TP loads at existing levels consistent with Tampa Bay's adaptive nutrient management strategy; and, 4. provide EPA with the Tampa Bay NMC's recommended protective loads for the Tampa Bay estuary that should be promulgated into the final numeric nutrient criteria for lakes, flowing waters and estuaries in the State of Florida.
2. Tampa Bay's Road to Recovery Water quality in Tampa Bay declined from the 1950s-1970s as population growth led to increased discharges of partially treated sewage with large amounts of nutrients directly to Tampa Bay. Algae blooms and fish kills were common throughout the latter part of this period and almost 50% of the seagrass in the bay died off as a result of insufficient light and poor water quality. Unregulated dredge and fill operations further contributed to the problem by clouding the water and physically removing portions of bay bottom from being re-colonized by seagrass. A significant turning point for Tampa Bay occurred in the 1980s when implementation of state legislation known as the Grizzle-Figg Act (Florida Statute 403.086), which was first adopted in the early 1970s, came into effect requiring more stringent treatment standards for wastewater plants discharging to Tampa Bay and its watershed. Upgrades to the City of Tampa's Howard F. Curren Plant at Hookers Point during the late 1970s to advanced wastewater treatment increased nutrient removal and significantly reduced the amount of nitrogen being discharged into the bay. Also across the bay, the City of St. Petersburg pioneered the country's first large-scale reclaimed wastewater program, reusing treated wastewater for irrigation of lawns and golf courses rather than discharging it into the bay. The advanced treatment and reuse standards set forth in Grizzle-Figg legislation provided the bay with a kick start for its turnaround. The quality of bay waters initially responded quickly to the reductions in nutrient loadings from point sources discharging to the bay in the early 1980s (Figure 1). Water quality in the bay has been further enhanced with the 1985 enactment ofstate legislation requiring more stringent stormwater treatment regulations (Florida Administrative Code: 40D-4; 40E40), additional upgrades of sewage treatment plants in the watershed to advanced wastewater standards and/or to reuse disposal, and voluntary nutrient reduction projects implemented through the Tampa Bay NMC. The Tampa BayNMC is an ad-hoc publicprivate partnership that includes federal and state regulators, local governments, and keyindustry stakeholders focused on managing nutrient inputs to the Tampa Bay estuary. Currently, the NMC has proactively developed nutrient loading limits for all major nutrient sources discharging to Tampa Bay. Collectively, both the voluntary actions of the Tampa Bay NMC and state regulatory actions adopted in the Tampa Bay watershed have served as the adaptive nutrient management strategy in the bay over the past quarter century. As a result of this adaptive nutrient management approach in Tampa Bay, existing total nitrogen and phosphorus loadings are currently half the levels of what was discharged to the bay in the 1970s (Figure 2) despite an increase in population to about 2.5 million residents in the Tampa Bay region (Figure 3). Maintenance of existing nutrient loads to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3928Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Tampa Bay has currently resulted in the bay meeting its designated uses and supporting full aquatic life protection. This includes the restoration and preservation of important seagrass resources, as well as maintaining and balancing the phytoplankton-based food web critical to the production of fish and wildlife populations in Tampa Bay. For instance, concentrations of chlorophyll-a - a key indicator of eutrophication and a parameter used in assessing progress in managing nutrient inputs to Tampa Bay - dropped dramatically in all major segments of the bay during the early 1980s. In Hillsborough Bay alone, the average chlorophyll-a concentrations decreased from 37 ug/L in 1982 to less than 15 ug/L (Figures 1.A. & 3). Since 1992, the major bay segments of Tampa Bay have met chlorophyll-a targets appropriate to support the expansion of seagrass nearly 80% of the time (Figure 4). For those years when targets were not met, anomalous rainfall events (El Niño years) likely contributed to exceedences. Historically, events such as unseasonable heavy rains or unanticipated spills have occasionally resulted in the Bay not meeting water quality thresholds indicative of the maintenance of existing nutrient inputs for a short period of time. Most recently in 2009, anomalous May rainfall served as a catalyst for a nuisance algae bloom (Pyrodinium bahamense) in upper Tampa Bay. The bloom resulted in water discoloration and reduced clarity during June and July 2009 and excessive chlorophyll-a concentrations during these months in the Old Tampa Bay segment; however, fish kills and humanhealth impacts were not reported during this time. As part of the adaptive nutrient management strategy employed in Tampa Bay, resource managers, scientists and researchers swiftly responded to the 2009 algae bloom event. In August 2009, the TBEP convened a special technical session to examine potential causes of the bloom, and more importantly, how best to address the causes in order to reduce the future possibility of nuisance algae blooms in Old Tampa Bay. Academic and agency scientists specializing in algae blooms in Florida hypothesized that the pulsed flow and associated nutrient flush from the heavy, unseasonal May rainfall resulted in conditions conducive to bloom formation, but that additional information was needed to determine the root causes of its initiation and persistence during the summer of 2009. Additionally, several significant actions by local governments and the TBEP have occurred since the 2009 algae bloom to support the adaptive nutrient management strategy for Tampa Bay. In January 2010, Pinellas County (a highly urbanized county located in the watershed of Old Tampa Bay) approved a residential fertilizer management ordinance. This ordinance includes a ban on nitrogen residential fertilizer application during the rainy summer months (June 1­ September 30) and also includes a ban on the retail sales of these products during the rainy season. The application ban will be in effect for 2010, followed by enforcement of the retail ban in 2011. In addition, at their February 2010 meeting, the elected officials of the TBEP Policy Board approved funding for additional studies as recommended by TBEP technical advisors to determine the causes of bloom formation. The studies will be used to identify appropriate, specific and effective management actions to reduce the potential for future bloom formations in this portion of Tampa Bay. Since 1982, with improved water clarity resulting from nutrient management actions, nearly 8,000 acres of seagrass have been naturally recovered in Tampa Bay. Recent estimates also indicate that the rate of seagrass expansion has increased over the past decade (Figure 5). From 1999-2008 seagrass have expanded at a rate of about 509 acres per year compared to approximately 428 acres per year for the 1988- 1998 period. Maintaining adequate conditions for seagrass growth and expansion has not been the only goal for the adaptive nutrient management strategy developed for Tampa Bay. As for other estuaries, Tampa Bay supports a phytoplankton-based

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3929Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams food web critical for supporting the designated uses of maintaining and enhancing fish and wildlife production. Nutrient load reductions, as well as other restoration efforts have promoted the long-term maintenance of a balanced ichthyofaunal assemblage in Tampa Bay [1]. As for species that are directly dependent on phytoplankton production in the bay, young-ofthe- year abundance of striped mullet, Mugil cephalus, has remained relatively constant over the recent period (Figure 6). Striped mullet are an algae-eating species that are economically important in Florida and serve as key trophic intermediates of balanced phytoplankton-based food webs in southeastern US estuaries [2]. Notably, peak indices of abundance for this species have occurred when chlorophyll-a concentrations in the bay have exceeded targets due to anomalous events. Likewise, other trophic levels dependent upon a balanced phytoplankton-based food web show peaks in abundance during anomalous nutrient loading events. Baitfishfeeding bird species nesting in Tampa Bay, including the brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) follow the patterns observed for striped mullet (Figure 7). Increases in nesting pairs were observed in the El Niño years when high nutrient loads and chlorophyll-a levels were observed in Tampa Bay. Based on these lines of empirical evidence, the Tampa Bay NMC asserts that the existing adaptive nitrogen management strategy developed for Tampa Bay has been shown to support full aquatic life protection and designated uses in Tampa Bay. The premise of this strategy is to maintain existing TN and TP loads at levels that will support a balanced ecosystem. This balance has resulted in the recovery of seagrass resources by maintaining appropriate water clarity in the Bay while supporting and maintaining the Bay's fish and wildlife populations through an adequate phytoplanktonbased food web. The evolution and justification of this strategy for Tampa Bay is described in the next section.
3. Development of the Tampa Bay Nutrient Management Strategy The Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) was established in 1991 to help local governments, agencies, and other stakeholders in the Tampa Bay area develop a plan to sustain the recovery of Tampa Bay. The TBEP partners adopted a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan in December 1996 (subsequently updated in 2006; Attachment A) that included measurable goals for the achievement of the Bay's designated uses and to support full aquatic life protection. Among these goals was the restoration of bay water quality to support the recovery of seagrass resources while maintaining and enhancing the Bay's fisheries production and other designated uses through bottom-up processes. Significant resources, commitments, and investments have been made by TBEP partners to achieve these goals with measured success. Public and private parties that comprise the TBEP management and policy boards unanimously adopted a strategy that limits nutrient loading to the major bay segments of Tampa Bay. These limits ensure that adequate water clarity and light levels are maintained in the bay on an annual basis to promote seagrass recovery. These limits also provide a balance between the recovery of seagrass resources and maintaining and enhancing the phytoplankton-based food web and fisheries production long recognized in Tampa Bay. To further reinforce their commitment in maintaining these ecosystem-based restoration goals for Tampa Bay, local government and agency partners formally adopted an Interlocal Agreement in 1998 (Attachment B). Simultaneously in August 1996, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program's governmental partners joined with key industries in the Tampa Bay region to create an ad-hoc public/private partnership known as the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium. The Consortium's intent and mission was to implement an Action Plan to meet the protective nutrient load

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3930Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams targets developed for Tampa Bay. During development of the targets, bioassay experiments, empirically-derived nutrient-response relationships, and water quality modeling simulations indicated that controlling nitrogen loads to the bay should be the primary watershed management focus to limit phytoplankton production and allow for improvements in bay water clarity (Attachment C). These early studies clearly established that nitrogen loads were the limiting nutrient in the Tampa Bay estuary and that phosphorus loadings to the bay from the enriched Bone Valley region were not controlling estuarine production. The original Consortium Action Plan, entitled Partnership for Progress (Attachment D), consisted of more than 100 projects that collectively reduced or precluded nitrogen discharges to the bay by an estimated 134 tons each year between 1995 and 1999. Since 1999, an additional 138 projects have been implemented to reduce nitrogen loads to the bay by about 298 tons each year. In total, from 1992-present, Consortium participants have invested over $430 million in projects and actions to reduce nutrient loads to Tampa Bay in order to adaptively manage for and meet the protective load targets for the bay (Attachment E). The commitments and projects implemented by Consortium participants have served as the core of a larger nutrient management strategy for Tampa Bay that includes: 1) achieving a resource-based management goal of restoring/preserving baywide seagrass resources and habitats while maintaining and enhancing fisheries production in the bay (Attachment F); 2) achieving chlorophyll-a and nutrient reduction targets specific for each major bay segment that support the recovery of seagrass resources (Attachment G); 3) identifying a general apportionment of responsibility for meeting the nutrient reduction targets within the major bay segments (Attachment D & H); and 4) tracking whether adequate water quality is being maintained and, as a result, seagrass resources are being restored (Attachment I) and full aquatic life support is protected (Attachment J). In November 2002, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) concluded that the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium's nitrogen management strategy provided reasonable assurance that the state water quality criteria for nutrients would be met in Tampa Bay (Attachment K). Prior to this state determination, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized a 1998 action by FDEP that proposed a total maximum load ("federally-recognized TMDL") of nitrogen that could be discharged to the bay annually and still meet state water quality standards related to nutrients (Attachment L). Both FDEP's reasonable assurance determination and the total maximum nitrogen loading recognized by EPA are based on statistical modeling and data analyses peer-reviewed by the TBEP, its partners, and state and federal regulators (Attachment M). Thus, the Consortium's nutrient loading targets developed for the major bay segments of Tampa Bay (Figure 8) have been acknowledged by both FDEP and EPA as protective nutrient loads for this estuary. In 2007, additional local governments, industries and agencies located within the Tampa Bay watershed were invited to: 1) become participants in the Consortium; 2) continue to develop and implement the collaborative watershed approach to nutrient management for Tampa Bay; and 3) help further meet the regulatory requirements of FDEP and EPA in maintaining protective nutrient loads for Tampa Bay. To date, more than 50 entities now actively participate in the Consortium. As a result of this renewed effort and interest in maintaining protective nutrient loads for the Tampa Bay estuary, Consortium participants submitted a 2007 Reasonable Assurance update to FDEP on January 28, 2008 (Attachment N) with the expressed intent to develop permit-specific nitrogen load allocations for all major dischargers to

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3931Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Tampa Bay by summer 2009. The FDEP accepted this updated nitrogen management strategy (Attachment O) with the acknowledgment that the Consortium would proactively develop an equitable process and define the suggested nitrogen load allocations to all major sources and permitteddischargers within the Tampa Bay watershed that would meet the protective nutrient loads defined in the 1998 federally-recognized TMDL (Attachment L). Most recently on September 11, 2009, the Consortium approved protective nitrogen load allocations for all major sources in the Tampa Bay watershed and later finalized the 2009 Reasonable Assurance Addendum: Allocation and Assessment Report (on January 22, 2010) for submittal to FDEP (Attachment P) to fulfill FDEP's 2007 reasonable assurance determination (Attachment O) and meet the protective estuarine nitrogen loads established in the 1998 federallyrecognized TMDL (Attachment L). This accomplishment will ensure that nutrient loads will be managed to support the continued recovery of the Tampa Bay estuary. The successful nutrient management strategy that has evolved from the efforts of local governments, agencies, and industry participants of the Tampa Bay NMC since the 1990's, has ensured that the designated uses of the Tampa Bay estuary are and will continue to be met in the future. To date, this strategy has documented proven results (Attachment Q). The recovery of the Tampa Bay ecosystem after decades of decline is unprecedented among urban estuaries worldwide and has been cited in numerous peer-reviewed publications [3] as a successful nutrient management strategy that has produced desired results. The improved water quality and ecological health of the bay is even more remarkable in light of strong population growth that has occurred during the recovery period (Figure 3). Bay water quality initially responded quickly to reductions in nitrogen loading, and has since been maintained at levels that promote the recovery of seagrasses in the bay. From 1982 to 2008, nearly 8,000 acres of seagrasses have been naturally recovered in the bay (Attachment R). The reductions in nitrogen loads to Tampa Bay and resulting recovery of seagrasses has also led to overall improvements for other designated uses and the support of full aquatic life protection (Attachment H). The overall variability in annual dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations (the difference between the observed maximum and minimum values) appears to be declining over time, and median DO conditions in all major bay segments are protective of aquatic life support (Attachment H). These patterns are consistent with the observed response to the reductions in nutrient loadings and algal biomass that have occurred during the past quarter century in Tampa Bay. Likewise, fish and wildlife populations in Tampa Bay have either shown stable or increasing trends in abundance due to the overall ecosystem improvements that have occurred in response to nitrogen load reductions in Tampa Bay (Attachment J). The Tampa Bay ecosystem has indeed shown a balanced response to the nutrient management strategy employed by TBEP partners; however, it is recognized that anomalous events are still occasionally observed in the system and continuing adaptive management strategies will need to be employed (Attachment S). Regardless of these temporary perturbations, Tampa Bay has seen consistent improvement in its water quality and associated designated uses largely through the efforts of this stakeholder-driven initiative and state legislation to improve wastewater and stormwater treatment. Given the three decades of cooperative and collaborative experience that has driven these improvements and understanding of nutrient management for the Tampa Bay estuary, the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium requests that EPA utilize this adaptive nutrient management strategy for defining protective nutrient loads for the Tampa Bay estuary in its proposed rules for lakes, flowing waters and estuaries of the State of Florida. As demonstrated above, there is considerable evidence that existing loads to the major bay segments of Tampa Bay provide for the full aquatic life protection and support for all designated uses in the estuary and are therefore within the estuary's assimilative capacity.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3932Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams [1] Matheson, R.E., R.H. McMichael, T.C. MacDonald & G.E. McLaughlin. In Press. A Brief History of the Fish Fauna of Tampa Bay. Proceedings of the 5th Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, St. Petersburg, FL. October 20-23, 2009. 18 pp. [2] Wenner, C.A., W.A. Roumillat, J.E. Moran M.B. Maddox, L.B. Daniel and J.W. Smith. 1990. Investigations on the life history and population dynamics of marine recreational fishes in South Carolina, part 1. South Carolina Marine Resources Research Institute, Completion reports, Project F-37, Charleston and Project F-31, Brunswick. [3] Badylak, S. & E.J. Phlips 2008. Spatial and temporal distributions of zooplankton in Tampa Bay, Florida, including observations during a HAB event. J. of Plankton Resarch. 30(4):449-465. Bricker, S.B. & 6 others. 2008. Effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation's estuaries: A decade of change. Harmful Algae. 8:21-32. Cloern, J.E. & A.D. Jassby. 2009. Patterns and Scales of Phytoplankton Variability in Estuarine-Coastal Ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts. 1559-2731. doi. 10.1007/s12237-009-9195-3. Duarte, C.M., D.J. Conley, J. Carstensen & M. Sánchez-Camacho. 2009. Return to Neverland: Shifting baselines affect eutrophication restoration targets. Estuaries and Coasts. 32:29-36. Johansson, J.O.R. and Lewis III, R.R. 1992. Recent improvements of water quality and biological indicators in Hillsborough Bay, a highly impacted subdivision of Tampa Bay, Florida, USA, in Marine Coastal Eutrophication, The Response of Marine Transitional Systems to Human Impact: Problems and Perspectives for Restoration, edited by: Vollenweider, R. W., Marchetti, R., and Viviani, R., Elsevier Press, New York, 1191-1215, 1992. Morrison, G., E.T. Sherwood, R. Boler & J. Barron. 2006. Variations in water clarity and chlorophyll a in Tampa Bay, Florida, in response to annual rainfall, 1985-2004. Estuaries and Coasts. 29(6):926-931. National Research Council. 2000. Clean Coastal Waters - Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000. Nixon, S.W. 2009. Eutrophication and the macroscope. Hydrobiologia. 629:5-19 Paerl, H.W. 2009. Controlling eutrohpication along the freshwater-marine continuum: Dual nutrient (N and P) reductions are essential. Estuaries and Coasts. 32:593-601. Rabalais, N.N. & 5 others. 2009. Dynamics and distribution of natural and human-caused coastal hypoxia. Biogeosciences Discussions. 6:9359-9453. Testa, J.M., W.M. Kemp, W.R. Boynton & J.D. Hagy. 2008. Long-Term Changes in Water Quality and Productivity in the Patuxent River Estuary: 1985 to 2003. Estuaries and Coasts. 31:1021-1037. Waycott, M. & 13 others. 2009. Accelerating loss of seagrass across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 106(30):12377-12381

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3933Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 0606-1.001.007

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 4. Concerns with EPA's Draft Rule The Tampa Bay NMC has concerns regarding the draft rule for numeric nutrient criteria for flowing waters within the Tampa Bay watershed. This rule is based on the initial premise that Tampa Bay nutrient loads are above its assimilativecapacity. The Tampa Bay NMC's adaptive nutrient management approach in establishing the state and federallyapproved loading targets for the Tampa Bay estuary followed EPA's technical guidance. The Tampa Bay NMC approach utilizes bay segment specific quantitative stressor-response relationships to establish nutrient loading targets for the Tampa estuary which, according to EPA guidance, is considered the most preferred method for establishing numeric nutrient criteria. Specifically, the Tampa Bay NMC has defined the quantitative relationship between nutrient loads and chlorophyll-a levels in each of the major bay segments of the Tampa Bay estuary. As demonstrated above, there is considerable evidence that existing loads to the major bay segments of Tampa Bay provide for the full aquatic life protection and support for all designated uses in the estuary. 

# Comment ID 0606-1.001.009

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium 5. Recommended Protective Nutrient Loads for the Tampa Bay Estuary In order to maintain consistency in the adaptive resource-based nutrient management approach utilized in Tampa Bay that ensures: 1) the protection of the estuary from degradation associated with excessive nutrient loadings; 2) a balance of full aquatic life support being sustained and enhanced; and, 3) the attainment of all designated uses, the Tampa Bay NMC requests that EPA establish the nitrogen and phosphorus loading (Table 1), recognized by both FDEP and EPA as being protective of the Tampa Bay estuary through separate administrative actions, as the protective nutrient loads for the Tampa Bay estuary. As such, the Tampa Bay NMC requests that EPA finalize the existing TN and TP loads (specified for each major bay segment in Table 1), as the protective loads used in determining downstream protective values for flowing waters and as the protective Estuarine Nutrient Criteria for the Tampa Bay estuary. Furthermore, the Tampa Bay NMC requests that EPA finalize the protective estuarine loads established in Table 1 for nutrients in flowing waters as part of the second phase of this rulemaking process in coordination with the proposal and finalization of numeric criteria for estuarine and coastal waters that is anticipated to occur in 2011.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3934Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0606.001.001

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium As requested by the EPA in their proposed water quality standards for the State of Florida's lakes and flowing waters (Docket: EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596), the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium is providing feedback on appropriate nutrient loads that should be used as the numeric nutrient criteria for the Tampa Bay estuary. The attached cover letter and response (additional supporting documents submitted by mail to docket) outline the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium's commitment to maintaining nutrient loads to Tampa Bay that: 1) promote the recovery of seagrass, 2) provide for the protection of full aquatic life support, and 3) attain all designated uses in the estuary. The nutrient loads recommended by the Consortium in their response are those approved by FDEP and EPA through separate administrative actions. 

# Comment ID 0622.001.001

Author Name: Thompson C. Organization: MR. THOMPSON: I'm Chet Thompson. I'm the environmental program manager for a limited partnership. I'm a professional engineer in the state of Florida, and my comments this morning relate to the proposed downstream protective values for the Apalachee Bay and the Caloosahatchee river basin. I would like to first comment that the conclusions expressed in the proposed methods and approaches for developing numeric nutrient criteria in Florida waters, section 14, the pre-document proposed rule, that anthropogenic loads should be reduced by 50 percent reducing in roughly 30 percent in TN loads, because the Apalachee contains a whippet that in inherent for nutrients is a wrong conclusion. There is only one impaired whippet in all of the Apalachee that has been listed for nutrient impairment, and that's the Fenholloway River Estuary. The remainder of the Apalachee has been shown by numerous studies to have excellent, unimpaired eutrophic healths and existing loads to insure the Apalachee are protected at minimum. In 2009, USEPA Region IV completed created a TMDL for the Fenholloway Estuary using a calibrated time variable hydrodynamic water quality model on the eutrophic condition of the nearby local Ekafeena Estuary as an appropriate reference stream demonstrating good eutrophic health. The current EPA proposed rule would require a reduction of the TN of that good efficient stream -- Estuary. I would like to further comment that this Sparrow model has inaccurately modeled the current TN loading to the Apalachee Bay. We compared the EPA's output file and Sparrow for the reference of the Ekafeena (phonetic) and found it to only find it to only qualify two-thirds of field data of the calibrated existing TN loads for the TMDL model. They are not the same. So as proposed, if the Ekafeena is representative of the rest of the Apalachee -- my guess it is -- and downstream

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3935Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams protective value for the Apalachee would require a 30 percent reduction of a current load already underestimated by 30 percent. Lastly, I want to comment my support for proposed site-specific criteria alternative approach. In 2009, ester in nutrient TMDL found that in the Fenholloway that it can receive two times the TN load as the Ekafeena. And still, the Ekafeena limiting eutrophic factor is not nutrients. There are a wide-ranging factors that affect the water bodies throughout the state and having a method to address the individual waters is critical. So in summary, the Apalachee Bay including the Ekafeena Sea Coast and Basin has demonstrated to be in good eutrophic health, except for the Fenholloway, which the EPA has just established a TMDL to address. The existing TN and TP at current loads at minimum the downstream protective values for the Apalachee Bay. Second, the existing TM load for the Apalachee in the proposed rule is inactive. Field data can and should be used to calculate existing loads which are at minimum the appropriate downstream protective value. And last, have a robust site-specific criteria is critical for the Rule because of the highly variable eutrophic controlling factors associated with Florida waters. Thank you very much. 

# Comment ID 0652.001.003

Author Name: Janicki T. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium The response that we see as a result of those reductions in loadings can be seen in chlorophyll. And you can see in a very simple graphic of green and red, that the battle days didn't look very good but with those improvements in stormwater treatment and, most importantly, the grizzle fig (phonetics), there has been a reduction in nitrogen loads to Tampa Bay that has resulted in an improvement in water quality as represented by the green. Now you can see there are a couple of red years that occurred, now in these years where the lows were higher than what we expect them to be, or we'd like them to be. The important take-home message here is Tampa Bay can respond favorably once that load is reduced. It has the capability of bouncing back, if you will, from those reduced water quality conditions as a function of the larger loads. We have taken into account the fact that EPA has invited feedback, and we are going to take advantage of that, if you will, certainly over the next month and hopefully into the future. We have some specific concerns about the relationship between the loading estimates that we've established and those that are being used by EPA. And I think probably the most important thing -- and I took great interest in looking at the pictures that you showed. You've got to admit that's a biased view of -- I would have brought our photo album of some of the nicer pictures that you can see of waters in the State of Florida. There are some -- all waters aren't the same, obviously. We have some very, very positive and improved conditions that have occurred in many water bodies in the State. 

# Comment ID 0697.001.002

Author Name: Stewart J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3936Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Mosaic Fertilizer LLC I encourage the EPA to work closely with the Tampa Estuary Program to develop criteria that is protective of the environment and consistent with the progress of the Estuary Program and the Nitrogen Consortium that was made to reduce nitrogen loads in Tampa Bay. I am concerned that the interim loading targets for Tampa Bay may not be consistent with the federally-approved TMDL for a total nitrogen for Tampa Bay. Downstream protective values should apply at the estuary boundary and not throughout the upstream network. For the past 15 years the public and private parties of the Tampa Estuary Program and the Nitrogen Consortium have validated and adopted total nitrogen loads that are adequate to meet EPA regulatory needs for nutrient criteria. In 1996 the Tampa Estuary Program adopted nutrient management targets to restore and protect seagrass beds and restore environmental conditions in Tampa Bay. This led to resource-based management targets for total nitrogen. Current management actions have maintained total nitrogen loads at levels that apply full aquatic life protection in Tampa Bay. These loads have been shown to supporthealthy seagrass beds and encourage seagrass expansion. I am requesting that the EPA use Tampa Bay's resourcebased nutrient loading targets and approved TMDL as protective downstream loads for Tampa Bay. The recentlysubmitted Tampa Bay Reasonable Assurance document and associated TMDLs are both appropriate, defensible and protective downstream loads for Tampa Bay. Nitrogen targets used in Tampa Bay Management Consortium are consistent with EPA's guidelines. EPA's proposed criteria do not take into account existing conditions of downstream water bodies for Tampa Bay. The downstream protective value is less than one half of the federally-recognized TMDL. Based on extensive and collaborative science-based work by the Estuary Program, we are confident that the TMDL total nitrogen loads for Tampa Bay are defensible and protective of Tampa Bay's designated uses and living resources and therefore are suitable as reasonable appropriate nutrient criteria. Our request is that EPA accept and recognize the Consortium's total nitrogen loads as interim nutrient loading targets for fresh waters in the Tampa Bay watershed. Existing loads are appropriate and scientifically defensible. The Tampa Bay Estuary's work constitutes site-specific analysis for that estuary and should be used in the rule development. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0704.001.002

Author Name: Glicksberg D. Organization: Hillsborough County Public Works Department We are a member of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium and have worked with that group for several years to develop specific science-based total nitrogen loads for Tampa Bay as well as total nitrogen load allocations for the entire Tampa Bay watershed. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency both worked diligently with the Nitrogen Management Consortium in the process of developing these loads to meet the EPA's own federally-recognized total maximum daily load for nitrogen in Tampa Bay. Implementation of the proposed downstream protective values would be inconsistent with this federally-recognized TMDL. EPA's proposed approach for determining downstream protective loads does not take into account the existing condition of the downstream water. Through the work of the Nitrogen Management Consortium, current management actions have effected significant water quality improvements in Tampa Bay and have maintained total nitrogen and total phosphorous loads at levels that provide full aquatic life protection in the bay and allow it to meet its designated use. Further nutrient reductions are not needed and effort to achieve them would direct scarce resources away from higher priority load reductions needed for truly impaired waters.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3937Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

# Comment ID 0704.001.004

Author Name: Glicksberg D. Organization: Hillsborough County Public Works Department For these reasons we urge the EPA to utilize existing total nitrogen and total phosphorous loads to Tampa Bay and the downstream protective loads for the Tampa Bay region in the final rule for water quality standards for Florida lakes and flowing waters. Or, as an alternative, we request that the EPA delay the determination of downstream protective loads for Tampa Bay until such time that the estuarine numeric nutrient criteria are finalized. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments to you today and for your earnest consideration of our concerns with the proposed rule. 

# Comment ID 0705.001.001

Author Name: Berry A. Organization: Hillsborough County Water Resource Services Good afternoon. I am Andy Berry with Hillsborough County Water Resource Services. My comments are basically the same as what you just heard from Hillsborough County, so I will not repeat them verbatim at this time, and I have provided you with a copy of them. I would like to emphasize, however, that the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium has worked long and hard to develop nitrogen allocations for the entire Tampa Bay watershed. These load allocations have been developed with the objective of meeting the federally-recognized total maximum daily load that you, EPA, have imposed on Tampa Bay. These nutrient loads have resulted in significant water quality improvements in Tampa Bay. We urge EPA to utilize existing total nitrogen and total phosphorous loads to Tampa Bay as the downstream protective loads of the Tampa Bay region. Requiring further reductions is not necessary, as evidenced by the work of the Consortium and water quality improvements in Tampa Bay. For domestic wastewater facilities such as ours, that are already operating at advanced wastewater treatment levels, the proposed criteria may not even be achievable. As an alternative, as you just heard, we request EPA delay the determination of downstream protective loads for Tampa Bay until such time as the estuarine and something criteria are finalized. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0707.001.003

Author Name: Greening H. Organization: Tampa Bay Estuary Program

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3938Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Second, and more importantly, I thank you for recognizing that certain estuaries, site-specific analysis, should be used instead of EPA's general approach for establishing downstream protective values in the final freshwater rule. Multiple lines of empirical data show that existing loads to Tampa Bay, defined as the average annual loads from 2003 to 2007, support designated uses and aquatic life support and should be used instead of the general approach to the final rule. I've given you a handout here that shows some of that empirical information. The map on slide two shows four open-water segments of Tampa Bay, for your reference. As shown in slide three, existing total nitrogen loads are less than half of what they were in the 1970s to Tampa Bay. This sharp reduction was due to wastewater treatment plant reductions following their implementation of AWT standards in 1980, followed by stormwater treatment regulations and the voluntary actions of the Consortium members. Slideshow four shows that maintenance of loads at existing levels has resulted in meeting Chlorophyll a targets for seagrass expansion over 80 percent of the time since 1992, with the exception of El Nino heavy rains in 1994 and 1995 and again in 1998. At this time our loads were exceeded and our Chlorophyll showed that we were exceeding that. Maintaining existing loads have resulted in maintenance and expansion of healthy seagrass beds in Tampa Bay, as seen in slide five. We've seen an increase of almost 4,000 acres since 1992. We did see a loss of seagrass in the El Nino years, again in response to higher loads and higher concentrations of Chlorophyll, but a quick recovery. Rate of expansion over the last ten years was over 500 acres per year in Tampa Bay. And at this rate we will meet our goal of restoring seagrass to 1950's levels by about 2025. But maintaining adequate conditions for seagrass growth is not the only goal of full aquatic life support. Slide six shows recent abundance for striped mullet, an algae-feeding species. Striped mullet abundance is relatively constant over the monitoring period with increases, again, in that El Nino year of 1998. Existing loads also maintain bait fish feeding bird species nesting in Tampa Bay, including the brown pelicans. As for striped mullet, increases in the nesting pairs of brown pelicans were observed in the El Nino years of high loads in Chlorophyll. So it appears that those high loads were good for bait fish, good for pelicans, not so good for seagrass. There seems to be an imbalance in those kind of things. In summary, existing total nitrogen, total phosphorous loads to Tampa Bay support full aquatic life protection and designated uses by providing a balance of both adequate water quality and clarity for healthy and expanding seagrass beds and adequate phytoplankton to support the bay's fish and wildlife populations. Based on this empirical evidence, the Consortium respectfully requests that EPA acknowledge existing TN and TP loads in Tampa Bay as appropriate and defensible downstream protective loads in the final Florida Lakes and Flowing Waters rule. The Consortium will be submitting full documentation to the public record and we encourage you to contact us with any questions or comments. And we thank you for considering our request. 

# Comment ID 0717.001.006

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3939Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Manatee County Natural Resources Department Through detailed studies and evaluations conducted in Tampa Bay, further nutrient reductions, specifically nitrogen, are not needed. EPA needs to recognize and embrace the expansive efforts conducted by the National Estuary Programs in Florida and incorporate the goals, targets and criteria established by these programs as appropriate to meet the numeric nutrient standards for these estuaries and tributaries. 

# Comment ID 0717.001.010

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Manatee County Natural Resources Department Finally, it is the desire of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium to have EPA acknowledge and accept existing TN and TP loads, total nitrogen and total phosphorous, as presented to EPA and Florida DEP in a 1998 TMDL and a recent reasonable assurance update to Tampa Bay downstream protective loads. Thank you for listening to us today. 

# Comment ID 0725.001.001

Author Name: Merriam J. Organization: Sarasota County I'm Jack Merriam from Sarasota County. And on behalf of the taxpayers and citizens of Sarasota County, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to come down and listen to our concerns. Back in the late '80s I was involved in an effort to get Sarasota Bay designated in the then new National Estuary Program. And we had some comments from DEP and perhaps EPA that Sarasota Bay was not in bad enough condition to warrant designation. And we argued that protecting estuaries while we had the opportunity was far more cost effective than trying to fix them after we had polluted them. And we were successful in getting Sarasota Bay designated as a National Estuary Program. Since then the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County have spent millions of dollars on wastewater treatment, taking septic tanks offline. We have thousands of old septic tanks that are causing us problems. And we are sewering those as rapidly as we can. We have built regional stormwater systems, in many cases with grant money either from DEP or EPA. We passed one of the first fertilizer ordinances in Florida and until Pinellas County passed theirs, which is now the most stringent, we got a lot of criticism for having too stringent an ordinance and yet beginning to ratchet down all of the sources that we could is our goal. We adopted the first low-impact development manual, developed it in conjunction with the Southwest Florida Water Management District over there. And I know that EPA recently had a webcast talking about low-impact development and your desire to implement it for retrofitting our water bodies.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3940Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

One of the things we did that was interesting was we did a GIS of the age of developments in Sarasota County and you can see that all of our oldest development, much of which was developed prior to the Clean Water Act, is right on our bay, and so we have a challenge for retrofitting. We appreciate EPA's grant. We just recently approved a 319 grant on Hudson Bayou, which discharges into Sarasota Bay, and we'll be retrofitting that with some low-impact development things. Biological indicators seem to be moving in a positive direction in Sarasota Bay. We started a seagrass monitoring program some years ago and again appreciated a Gulf Guardian Award from EPA for that program, which is really helping us to develop a biological database. We also are doing biological monitoring of oysters, scallops, and we've developed the first tidal creek index, which looks at macroinvertebrates in Florida and are using that as, again, a biological indicator of how well our water bodies are doing. So we collectively are getting a good return on our investment, I think. Sarasota County is a member actually of all three of those estuary programs that Rob Brown spoke of earlier. We have a very small piece of the Tampa Bay. We are in the Sarasota Bay estuary program and the Charlotte Harbor estuary program. For the past ten years we collectively and collaboratively have spent millions of dollars developing science to manage these estuaries. EPA and FDEP have been very active partners. We feel strongly that the national estuary programs are the appropriate entities to develop scientifically-sound peer review, regionally appropriate criteria to manage our water bodies. We are developing watershed management plans, in which we are implementing water quality, level of surface water quality standards, pollutant loading model, et cetera, and we are working through the estuary programs because we cross county lines. We can't manage Sarasota Bay without working with our adjacent brothers and sisters in Manatee County, et cetera. So it's very important that we work through the estuary programs for a whole host of good reasons if we want to properly manage our bays and estuaries. And so I would strongly encourage you to accept when the estuary programs have submitted their proposed criteria that we believe will allow us to continue the biological trends in a positive direction. Thank you very much. 

# Comment ID 0734.001.008

Author Name: Young K. Organization: Tampa Electric Company A better approach is available. EPA should use water body-specific models for successful management plans to set downstream protective values. For example, Tampa Electric supports the efforts of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3941Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams and is a member of the Nitrogen Management Consortium. The consortium is a public-private partnership of over 40 municipalities, industrial representatives and regulating bodies, including EPA. The goal is to maintain full aquatic life protection in Tampa Bay and that is happening. The Estuary Program's approach has been scientifically accepted, peer-reviewed through publications and scientific journals and reviewed and accepted by EPA. This is an example of a water-based model that works. At Tampa Electric we respectfully request that EPA acknowledge the efforts of existing successful nutrient management plans and specifically for EPA to accept the current total nitrogen/total phosphorous loads to Tampa Bay determine by the Nitrogen Management Consortium as downstream protective loads for the Tampa Bay estuary in the final Florida lakes and flowing waters rule. 

# Comment ID 0735.001.002

Author Name: Alderson M. Organization: National Estuary Program in Sarasota The program is currently developing numeric nutrient criteria in concert with FDEP to maintain full life protection in Sarasota Bay. We've established seagrass and water quality targets and are rapidly progressing to numeric criteria by May of 2010. And we're really hopeful that you all are going to take these criteria seriously and review them as part of this process. Since 1988 we've reduced total nitrogen loads to our bay by 55 percent. Our seagrasses have increased by 46 percent in the bay. Certainly a good response in comparison. Seagrasses in Sarasota Bay are currently at 130 percent of 1950 conditions. That's 30 percent above. All of our bay segments in 2008 were at 1950 levels or above, considering a 5 percent margin of area. With seagrass levels and corresponding water quality data, we're just not seeing the conditions that you've reported in your technical support document. And so we have to take some issue with that. Our average Chlorophyll levels are relatively low, ranging from 4.8 to 8.3 and that was during the 2001-to-2005 time period. Since our drought they've been lower than that, significantly lower, between 2006 and 2009. Our average TN concentrations, to give you a feel, in Phillipi Creek, which is our largest tributary, have declined 60 percent over this period from 3.12 milligrams per liter down to about 1.25 milligrams per liter. And that's significant action that's been taken by Sarasota County to improve the condition. In our other bayou, which was a significant problem with regard to nitrogen loading, Whitaker Bayou, our loads have been reduced by 86 percent for Whitaker Bayou. Again, very large load reductions. Load reductions in Sarasota Bay and related streams we don't think are being taken into account as a part of the overall approach in the proposed rule as far as being reset a little lower, because you're looking at the 2002 concentrations and you're not looking back over the period of time when the load reductions were most significant. The Lemon Bay model cited in your technical support document suggests that our natural conditions in our region are about .7 milligrams per liter for these small creeks and coves running to the bay. The DPV is substantially lower than that. And we're not certain that we can meet conditions that are below natural in our particular area and we'd like to have that reviewed.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3942Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams



# Comment ID 0735.001.004

Author Name: Alderson M. Organization: National Estuary Program in Sarasota Scallops returned to Sarasota Bay in 2008 and they've persisted ever since and we think that's a pretty good indicator that things have significantly improved in our system and we'd like to have that taken into account. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 0741.001.005

Author Name: McLean J. Organization: City of Tampa Therefore, the City respectfully requests that the EPA reconsider and revise its proposed standard to officially recognize and incorporate the Tampa Bay Estuary's nitrogen management criteria as its standard for downstream protective values, 

# Comment ID 0745.001.001

Author Name: Frey C. Organization: City of St. Petersburg Good evening. I'm Carlos Frey. I'm an engineer with the City of St. Petersburg I'll keep this brief, like Mr. Kovach. As you've noticed, a lot of speakers representing Tampa Bay and the members of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the Nitrogen Management Consortium have spoken in support of the reasonable assurance plan that has been developed by the Nitrogen Management Consortium and submitted. As the City of St. Petersburg is a member of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and a member of the Nitrogen Management Consortium, we support the protection of Tampa Bay and we support the reasonable assurance plan that has been developed. It is protective of the Federal TMDLs. We certainly support the comments made today by the stakeholders, and particularly the comments made by Holly Greening, and by Pinellas County and other counties and the industry as well, too. 

# Comment ID 0745.001.004

Author Name: Frey C.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3943Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: City of St. Petersburg Just to summarize real quickly, we do support the reasonable assurance plan that's been submitted by Tampa Bay and wish that EPA adopts that for Tampa Bay and also consider developing or tying development of downstream protective values with rulemaking down the road, but not today. Thank you for your time. 

# Comment ID 0757.001.002

Author Name: Guest D. Organization: Earthjustice Tampa Bay's proposal to say, well, this whole thing is totally fixed. The TMDLs are just made in the shade. You know, just leave it. I don't think they also told you that there was a big algae bloom last year in the summer that lasted three months in Tampa Bay. So it obviously doesn't work and it needs some more work. 

# Comment ID 0804.001.002

Author Name: Judah R. Organization: Lee County Board of County Commissioners I will tell you this, and I'm asking you please to look at what you've already heard from some speakers of local specific site conditions. We feel that your criteria for nitrogen and the coastal estuaries and the Caloosahatchee River in our area is too high. That is a limiting nutrient on the west coast, and we would submit that you are going to further cause harm if you set that level too high. That, plus the phosphorous at just the right ratios create a devastating impact to our grass beds and to our marine fisheries resource. So I would ask that you look at local data. We certainly have a lot of data. 

# Comment ID 0878-1.001.002

Author Name: Higginbotham A. Organization: Tampa Bay Estuary Program Given the three decades of cooperative and collaborative experience that has driven these improvements, we fully support the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium's request that EPA recognize the Consortium's adaptive nutrient management strategy for defining protective nutrient loads for the estuary in its proposed rules for lakes, flowing waters and estuaries of the State of Florida. 

# Comment ID 0912-1.001.004

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3944Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams

Author Name: Davis T. Organization: Eastern Associated Terminals Company LLC We respectfully request that the EPA finalize the NMC's Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) loads as the protective loads used in determining downstream protective values (DPYs) for flowing waters and as the protective Estuarine Nutrient Criteria for the Tampa Bay estuary. Existing TN and TP loads to Tampa Bay are currently providing a balance of adequate water quality for healthy and expanding seagrass beds, and adequate phytoplankton production to Support the bay's fish and wildlife populations. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Again, we urge EPA to work with the NMC to address the issues identified in their comments. 

# Comment ID 0951.001.004

Author Name: Berry A. Organization: Hillsborough County Water Resource Services For these reasons, we urge the EPA to utilize existing Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus loads to Tampa Bay as the Downstream Protective Loads for the Tampa Bay region in the final rule for Water Quality Standards for Florida's Lakes and Flowing Waters; Or, as an alternative: We request that the EPA delay the determination of Downstream Protective Loads for Tampa Bay until such time that Estuarine Numeric Nutrient Criteria are finalized. 

# Comment ID 0951.001.005

Author Name: Berry A. Organization: Hillsborough County Water Resource Services I would like to emphasize, however, that the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium has worked long and hard to develop nitrogen allocations for the entire Tampa Bay watershed. These load allocations have been developed with the objective of meeting the federally recognized Total Maximum Daily Load that you, EPA, have imposed on Tampa Bay. These nutrient loads have resulted in significant water quality improvements in Tampa Bay. We urge EPA to utilize existing Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus loads to Tampa Bay as the Downstream Protective Loads for the Tampa Bay region . Requiring further reductions is not necessary as evidenced by the work of the Consortium and water quality improvements in Tampa Bay. 

# Comment ID 0975.001.003

Author Name: Wanio R.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3945Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Tampa Port Authority Tampa Bay's scientific determination of appropriate nutrient loads to support healthy seagrass beds and encourage seagrass expansion has been peer-reviewed through publication of scientific journal articles and reviewed and accepted by EPA and FDEP. Maintaining these appropriate loads has resulted in FDEP-approved chlorophyll-a thresholds being met more than 80% of the time since 1992. Seventy-three percent of the chlorophyll-a exceedances have occurred in very high rainfall El Nino years. Seagrass has expanded by more than 4,800 acres over this period, with recent expansion rates of 500 acres per year. Current management actions have maintained TN and TP loads atlevels that provide full aquatic life protection in Tampa Bay. Existing TN and TP loads are appropriate and scientificallydefensible Estuarine Nutrient Criteria and Downstream Protective Loads for the Tampa Bay drainage area. EPA's draft approach for determining Downstream Protective Loads does not take into account the existing condition of the downstream water. Tampa Bay is currently maintaining full aquatic life protection and uses as evidenced by the maintenance and expansion of healthy seagrass beds, the estuarine-dependent fauna that inhabit them, and the critical phytoplankton-based food web. Further nutrient reductions are not needed, and efforts to achieve them would direct scarce resources away from more environmentally beneficial activities. 

# Comment ID 0975.001.004

Author Name: Wanio R. Organization: Tampa Port Authority In December 2007, more than 40 public and private participants in the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium proactively committed to develop an equitable process to propose TN load allocations to all sources consistent with the TMDL. The Consortium participants developed a set of nitrogen wasteload and load allocations that equitably distribute the burden of nitrogen management across all sectors and sources of nitrogen loading within the basin, as well as the total maximum loading of nitrogen to each major bay segment. USEPA and the FDEP are active participants in the Consortium, and provided written concurrence at each step of the process. In September 2009, the Consortium participants finalized their technical process, and proposed TN allocations to all 189 point and nonpoint sources within the Tampa Bay watershed. The Consortium understands that the proposed allocations will be incorporated into NPDES and MS4 permits. An important consideration of the Tampa Bay management plan is the understanding that Tampa Bay is a nitrogen-limited waterbody. Using information from published phytoplankton bioassays and water quality models, the Tampa Bay scientific and resource management community concluded that the Tampa Bay nutrient management effort should focus on nitrogen inputs. Geologically, the Tampa Bay watershed contains abundant phosphate deposits and the bay is naturally phosphate-rich. Over multidecadal time scales, substantial changes in phytoplankton biomass, water clarity, dissolved oxygen and other indicators of bay trophic state have occurred in response to changing nitrogen loadings. Based on the extensive and collaborative science-based definition of protective TN loads for designated uses of Tampa Bay as outlined above, we propose that these TN loads are protective of the estuarine bay segments of Tampa Bay. The TMDL TN loads for Tampa Bay are defensible and protective of Tampa Bay's designated uses and living resources and therefore are suitable as regionally-appropriate numeric nutrient criteria. In summary, existing TN and TP loads to Tampa Bay support full aquatic life protection by providing a balance of adequate water clarity for healthy and expanding seagrass beds, and adequate phytoplankton production to support the bay's fish and wildlife populations. On behalf of the Tampa Port Authority as a participant in the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium, we respectfully request that USEPA accept and recognize the

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3946Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Consortium's TN loads as Interim Estuarine Numeric Nutrient Loading Targets in the January 2010 draft documentation for freshwaters in the Tampa Bay watershed. Further, we are looking forward to working with the USEPA and FDEP over the next year to ensure that the locally-derived TMDL loadings for Tampa Bay are considered as the Estuarine Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Tampa Bay. Please do not hesitate to contact Phil Steadham, Tampa Port Authority Director of Environmental Affairs ( psteadham@tampaport.com or 813-905-5030), with any questions or comments about our request. 

# Comment ID 1013.001.001

Author Name: Hibbard F. Organization: Clearwater City Council The purpose of this letter is to submit formal comments on the subject docket item. The City Council of the City of Clearwater, Florida, strongly endorses the request of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium that EPA accept and finalize the Consortium TN and TP loads as the protective loads used in determining downstream protective values for inland waters and as the Estuarine Nutrient Criteria for the Tampa Bay Estuary. Water quality in Tampa Bay has shown remarkable recovery since the late 1970's due to significant actions implemented by local governments, including the City of Clearwater. Our wastewater treatment plants instituted advanced wastewater treatment standards starting in 1980, reducing nitrogen loads by 90% from these sources. More stringent statewide stormwater treatment regulations for all new development was initiated in the mid 1980's, further reducing nutrients to Tampa Bay. The City of Clearwater has gone a step further than the state regulations to include stormwater treatment for all redevelopment projects. In addition, since initiation of the consortium over 240 nutrient reduction projects have been implemented by :

- Local, regional and state governments

- Industries - Electric Utilities, and

- Agricultural interests 

# Comment ID 1126.001.002

Author Name: Brown R. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium E.P.A. needs to recognize and embrace the expansive efforts conducted by these national estuary programs and incorporate their goals, targets, and criteria that have been and are being established as appropriate to meet the numeric nutrient criteria for these estuaries and contributing tributaries. 

# Comment ID 1129.001.004

Author Name: Merriam J.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3947Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams Organization: Sarasota County We believe that E.P.A.'s underlying premise that most of Florida's estuaries are impaired by nutrients is flawed. In the rule, proposed rule, you say that most of Florida estuaries are listed as impaired to some extent by nutrients or nutrient-related causes, and many or most estuaries have reduced water clarity and substantial loss of seagrass habitats. None of the estuaries in the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program are currently listed as impaired for nutrients, and we currently have more seagrass in our collective bay systems than we did in 1948 to 1950. The fact that the biological indicators are all positive, our seagrasses are thriving seems to indicate that our existing watershed loads of total nitrogen and total phosphorus are protective of estuarine waters within the Sarasota Bay Estuary Program. We would suggest that you build on your investment in the estuary programs and utilize their science and -- for water quality targets as estuarine criteria and downstream protective values. Thank you. 

# Comment ID 1205.001.003

Author Name: Deitche S. Organization: G.P.I. Southeast on behalf of Eastern Associated TerminalsEastern Terminals supports previous written and oral comments by the consortium regarding the state and federallyapproved plan for Tampa Bay and related protective downstream nutrient loading values. This is a plan that uses -- excuse me. This is a plan that uses scientifically-defensible numbers derived from the combined decades of experience and expertise of scientists who work in the Tampa Bay estuary on a daily basis. In regards to Eastern Terminals, over the past 15 years, Eastern has voluntarily completed a wide range of projects at their facility at a cost of over 2 million dollars specifically to reduce material loss and nutrient runoff to Hillsborough Bay. These projects, over a dozen of them, have resulted in significant reductions in the facility's nutrient loadings to Hillsborough Bay. Now, you couple these with projects from other nearby fertilizer handling facilities, and there have been major improvements in Hillsborough Bay over the past decade, as evidenced by not only increased seagrass acreage, but increased water clarity and attainment of chlorophyll a targets set by the estuary program for the past 11 years. These -- these improvements have not only just occurred in Hillsborough Bay, but across Tampa Bay as well. And contrary to some of the anecdotes you have heard today, the science is clear, the water quality in Tampa Bay has been improving dramatically. To that end, we respectfully request that the E.P.A. acknowledge the consortium's nutrient loads as downstream

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3948Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams protective loads and the estuarine criteria for Tampa Bay. Thank you again. 

# Comment ID 1224.001.003

Author Name: Levy K. Organization: Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Watershed Management Division Pinellas County is committed to working with E.P.A. and D.E.P. to develop water quality standards that are protective of our environment. I want to take a moment to speak specifically about two water bodies right here in this area that we have specific requests for. E.P.A.'s guidance document states that the most comprehensive and scientifically-defensible approach to developing numeric nutrient criteria is to relate nutrients to a measured biological response. Based on the extensive scientific record for Tampa Bay, the standards in place today have achieved full aquatic life protection. The Tampa Bay community realized years ago that specific criteria were needed and led the charge to develop these standards to protect water quality and seagrass health.So we are requesting that E.P.A. support the Tampa Bay chlorophyll targets and the associated nutrient loads as sitespecific criteria for Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay -- the Tampa Bay community has demonstrated their commitment to water quality and ecological improvements, their willingness to employ adaptive management strategies, and as a cohesive community, we have achieved the desired goals and we will continue those efforts in the future. 

# Comment ID 1236.001.004

Author Name: Stewart J. Organization: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium We have embraced E.P.A.'s participation in the estuary program over the past decade and look forward to the continuing partnership throughout the next year while developing scientifically defensible protective nutrient criteria for Tampa Bay. I encourage E.P.A. to utilize the extensive scientific studies completed by the Nitrogen Management Consortium to develop downstream criteria appropriate for Tampa Bay. As previously reported, the consortium members had invested over 430 million dollars in nutrient reduction projects for Tampa Bay, which resulted in significant reduction of nitrogen loads. The phosphate industry, which I work in, has made numerous contributions to this effort in mining, processing, and

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3949Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams material handling facilities. We are proud of these accomplishments, and we will continue to look for new and innovative approaches to manage our business. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment and the open dialogue with E.P.A. 

# Comment ID 1241.001.004

Author Name: Latvala S. Organization: Pinellas County Based on the extensive scientific record, the existing standards put in place for Tampa Bay have achieved full aquatic life protection. The Tampa Bay community realized years ago that standards were needed, and led the charge to develop proper standards to protect water quality and seagrass health. Please support these standards as site-specific criteria for Tampa Bay. The Tampa Bay community has demonstrated that we can achieve the desired goals, and we will continue those efforts. 

# Comment ID 1241.001.006

Author Name: Latvala S. Organization: Pinellas County Pinellas County requests that the E.P.A. accept the chlorophyll targets and associated nitrogen loads for Tampa Bay as site-specific alternative criteria. They were developed specifically to meet the same goals the Environmental Protection Agency supports. The most comprehensive and scientifically-defensible approach to develop numeric nutrient criteria is to relate nutrients to a measured biological response. Therefore, the technical merits of these criteria should be accepted by the E.P.A. 

# Comment ID 1353-1.001.009

Author Name: Barnes F. Organization: Georgia Environmental Protection Division 4-3) Since estuarine target criteria, which will be finalized in 2011, will result in actual stream criteria for the watershed, EPD believes additional time developing the best available models to arrive at criteria is necessary. Scientifically robust watershed models that are linked to lake and estuary models, which can be used to evaluate downstream biological responses, are available to set nutrient criteria based on river basin or watershed approach. This watershed approach may be sounder than the use of ecoregions, since ecoregions often cross watershed boundaries. Watershed, lake, and estuary models have recently been used as part of the Georgia State-wide Water Planning process to evaluate numeric

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3950Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams chlorphyll a and nutrient standards for Georgia lakes. These models have higher resoloution than the SPARROW model, and can be calibrated on a finer scale. They can include soil loadings and deposition, and can include current and future landuse to predict appropriate nutrient loadings. Model runs can calculate current loads and background loads from anthropogenic sources, in order to arrive at nutrient loading and criteria that is protective of the watershed and downstream lakes and estuaries. 

# Comment ID 1777-2.001.026

Author Name: Blanchard B. Organization: Florida Department of Transportation 3. The methodology utilized in the development of protective loadings for the estuaries is unrealistic and did not take advantage of the extensive efforts being conducted by FDEP and other groups around the State (specific example of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Consortium). Additionally, there were numerous TMDLs approved by EPA that were not considered in the assessment of the protective load for the estuarine segments. EPA makes the inappropriate assumption that current loads are at or above protective TN loads for all Florida estuaries. In Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor, seagrasses serve as the desired endpoint to assess water quality management activities aimed at controlling nutrient loadings. Seagrass coverage has increased in each of these systems since the 1980s, indicating the success of watershed management actions. Therefore, it is difficult to justify additional load reductions where empirical data show such responses to management actions specifically developed to address water quality problems. 4. The blanket methodology utilized to define the protective loads for all of the estuaries targeted, was unrealistic and not reflective of true conditions. The determination of appropriate protective loads needs to be on an estuary by estuary basis and reflective of actual biological response measured within the system. It is recommended that EPA utilize the extensive data available throughout the state being developed by various groups as well as TMDLs already approved and undergoing BMAP development. It is not reasonable for EPA to supersede the extensive amount of work that has gone on in many estuaries throughout Florida, especially where BMAPs or Reasonable Assurance (RA) plans have been developed and are being implemented with measureable resulting improvements. 

# Response

Comment IDs: All Response: EPA appreciates comments received regarding downstream protection of estuaries. EPA has deferred final rulemaking on downstream protection of estuaries to the Agency’s 2011 rulemaking on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters. This decision is consistent with what EPA indicated in its proposed rule signed by the EPA Administrator on January 15, 2010: “At this time, EPA plans to take final action with respect to downstream protection values for nitrogen as part of the second phase of this rulemaking process in coordination with the proposal and finalization of numeric standards for estuarine and coastal waters in 2011” (p. 4208, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596, FRL-9105-1). This decision facilitates coordination with the development of proposed estuarine and coastal water quality criteria. EPA will consider these comments as it develops the proposed rule on numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters due to be published in November 2011. EPA

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3951Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams encourages commenters to consider providing comments on the 2011 proposed rule as part of that rulemaking process, which may reflect modifications to the downstream protection of estuaries approach described in the January 2010 proposed rule for Florida’s inland waters. On June 7, 2010, EPA and Plaintiffs filed a joint notice with the Court extending the deadlines for promulgating numeric nutrient criteria for Florida's estuaries and coastal waters, flowing waters in south Florida (including canals), and the downstream protection values for flowing waters into estuaries and coastal waters. The new deadlines are November 14, 2011 for proposing the criteria, and August 15, 2012 for publishing a final rule for these categories. This will allow EPA time to hold a public peer review by EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board of the scientific methodologies for estuarine and coastal criteria, flowing waters in south Florida, and downstream protection values for estuaries and coastal waters. 

# III.C.6.Q.16 - PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM LAKES AND ESTUARIES QUESTION 16 No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary.


# III.C.6.NODA1 - EPA COMMITMENT TO FULL EVALUATION OF ALL COMMENTS No Comments are Applicable to this Issue Category, and Thus No Response is Necessary.

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3952