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 document 
Chapter 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 2-3048
 
Chapter 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Clean Water Act or the requirements of EPA's own technical guidance and should be withdrawn.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 2-3049
 
Chapter 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 2-3050
 
Chapter 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 2-3051
 
 

Chapter 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 2-3052
 
Chapter 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 2-3053
 
Chapter 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 2-3054
 
Chapter 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 few 

climatically 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 precipitation 

above 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 2-3055
 
Chapter 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 2-3056
 
Chapter 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 2-3057
 
Chapter 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 land 

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. 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3058
 
Chapter 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 2-3059
 
Chapter 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 2-3060
 
Chapter 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 2-3061
 
Chapter 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 2-3062
 
Chapter 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 2-3063
 
Chapter 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 2-3064
 
Chapter 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 2-3065
 
Chapter 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 2-3066
 
Chapter 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 2-3067
 
Chapter 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 2-3068
 
Chapter 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 2-3069
 
Chapter 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 2-3070
 
Chapter 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 2-3071
 
Chapter 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 2-3072
 
Chapter 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 2-3073
 
Chapter 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 2-3074
 
Chapter 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 2-3075
 
Chapter 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 2-3076
 
Chapter 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 2-3077
 
Chapter 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 2-3078
 
Chapter 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 2-3079
 
Chapter 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 2-3080
 
Chapter 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 2-3081
 
Chapter 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 2-3082
 
Chapter 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 2-3083
 
Chapter 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 2-3084
 
Chapter 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 2-3085
 
Chapter 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 2-3086
 
Chapter 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 2-3087
 
Chapter 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 2-3088
 
Chapter 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 2-3089
 
Chapter 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 2-3090
 
Chapter 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 2-3091
 
Chapter 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 2-3092
 
Chapter 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 2-3093
 
Chapter 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 2-3094
 
Chapter 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 2-3095
 
Chapter 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 2-3096
 
Chapter 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 2-3097
 
Chapter 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 2-3098
 
Chapter 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 2-3099
 
Chapter 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 2-3100
 
Chapter 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 2-3101
 
Chapter 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 are 

currently 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 2-3102
 
Chapter 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 2-3103
 
Chapter 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 2-3104
 
Chapter 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 2-3105
 
Chapter 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 2-3106
 
Chapter 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 2-3107
 
Chapter 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 2-3108
 
Chapter 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 2-3109
 
Chapter 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 2-3110
 
Chapter 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 2-3111
 
Chapter 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 2-3112
 
Chapter 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 2-3113
 
Chapter 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 2-3114
 
Chapter 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 2-3115
 
Chapter 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 2-3116
 
Chapter 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 2-3117
 
Chapter 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 the 

criterion 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 2-3118
 
Chapter 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 2-3119
 
Chapter 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 2-3120
 
 

Chapter 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 2-3121
 
Chapter 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 2-3122
 
Chapter 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 2-3123
 
Chapter 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 2-3124
 
Chapter 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 2-3125
 
Chapter 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 few 

climatically 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 precipitation 

above 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 2-3126
 
Chapter 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 2-3127
 
Chapter 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 2-3128
 
Chapter 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 land 

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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3129
 
Chapter 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 2-3130
 
Chapter 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 2-3131
 
Chapter 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 2-3132
 
Chapter 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 2-3133
 
Chapter 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 2-3134
 
Chapter 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 2-3135
 
Chapter 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 2-3136
 
Chapter 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 2-3137
 
Chapter 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 2-3138
 
Chapter 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 2-3139
 
Chapter 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 2-3140
 
Chapter 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 2-3141
 
Chapter 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 2-3142
 
Chapter 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 2-3143
 
Chapter 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 2-3144
 
Chapter 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 2-3145
 
Chapter 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 2-3146
 
Chapter 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 2-3147
 
Chapter 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 empirical 

evidence is given to support this assertion and no biological comparisons are provided to examine the intra and inter11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3148
 
Chapter 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 2-3149
 
Chapter 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 2-3150
 
Chapter 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 2-3151
 
Chapter 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 2-3152
 
Chapter 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 2-3153
 
Chapter 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 2-3154
 
Chapter 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 2-3155
 
Chapter 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 2-3156
 
Chapter 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 2-3157
 
Chapter 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 2-3158
 
Chapter 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 2-3159
 
Chapter 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 2-3160
 
Chapter 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 2-3161
 
Chapter 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 2-3162
 
Chapter 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 2-3163
 
Chapter 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 2-3164
 
Chapter 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 2-3165
 
Chapter 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 2-3166
 
Chapter 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 2-3167
 
 

Chapter 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 2-3168
 
Chapter 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 2-3169
 
Chapter 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 2-3170
 
Chapter 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 2-3171
 
Chapter 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 2-3172
 
Chapter 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 2-3173
 
Chapter 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 2-3174
 
Chapter 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 2-3175
 
Chapter 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 2-3176
 
Chapter 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 few 

climatically 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 precipitation 

above 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 2-3177
 
Chapter 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 2-3178
 
Chapter 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 2-3179
 
Chapter 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 land 

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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3180
 
Chapter 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 2-3181
 
Chapter 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 2-3182
 
Chapter 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 2-3183
 
Chapter 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 2-3184
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

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 

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 2-3185
 
Chapter 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 2-3186
 
Chapter 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 2-3187
 
Chapter 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 2-3188
 
Chapter 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 2-3189
 
Chapter 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 2-3190
 
Chapter 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 2-3191
 
Chapter 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 2-3192
 
Chapter 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 2-3193
 
Chapter 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 2-3194
 
Chapter 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 2-3195
 
Chapter 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 2-3196
 
Chapter 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 2-3197
 
Chapter 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 2-3198
 
Chapter 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 2-3199
 
Chapter 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 2-3200
 
Chapter 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 2-3201
 
Chapter 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 2-3202
 
Chapter 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 2-3203
 
Chapter 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 2-3204
 
 

Chapter 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 2-3205
 
Chapter 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 2-3206
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 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 2-3207
 
Chapter 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 2-3208
 
Chapter 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 2-3209
 
Chapter 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 2-3210
 
Chapter 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 2-3211
 
Chapter 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 2-3212
 
Chapter 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 2-3213
 
Chapter 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 2-3214
 
Chapter 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 2-3215
 
Chapter 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 2-3216
 
Chapter 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 2-3217
 
Chapter 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 2-3218
 
Chapter 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 2-3219
 
Chapter 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 2-3220
 
Chapter 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 2-3221
 
Chapter 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 2-3222
 
Chapter 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 healthy 

systems. 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 own 

Evaluation 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 2-3223
 
Chapter 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 2-3224
 
Chapter 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 2-3225
 
Chapter 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 2-3226
 
Chapter 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 2-3227
 
 

 

Chapter 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 2-3228
 
Chapter 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 2-3229
 
Chapter 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 in 

SCI 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 2-3230
 
Chapter 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 2-3231
 
Chapter 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 2-3232
 
Chapter 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 2-3233
 
Chapter 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 few 

climatically 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 precipitation 

above 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 2-3234
 
Chapter 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 2-3235
 
Chapter 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 land 

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 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 2-3236
 
Chapter 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 2-3237
 
Chapter 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 2-3238
 
Chapter 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 2-3239
 
Chapter 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 2-3240
 
Chapter 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 2-3241
 
Chapter 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 following 

comment 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 LLC 

The 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 2-3242
 
Chapter 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 2-3243
 
Chapter 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 2-3244
 
Chapter 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 2-3245
 
Chapter 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 2-3246
 
Chapter 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 2-3247
 
Chapter 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 2-3248
 
Chapter 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 2-3249
 
Chapter 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 2-3250
 
Chapter 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 2-3251
 
Chapter 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 stream 

biology 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 2-3252
 
Chapter 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 2-3253
 
Chapter 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 2-3254
 
Chapter 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 2-3255
 
Chapter 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 leadership 

and 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 2-3256
 
Chapter 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 2-3257
 
Chapter 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 2-3258
 
Chapter 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 2-3259
 
Chapter 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 2-3260
 
Chapter 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 (clear 

streams 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 2-3261
 
Chapter 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 2-3262
 
Chapter 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 2-3263
 
Chapter 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 2-3264
 
Chapter 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 2-3265
 
Chapter 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 4.10 

indicates, 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 stronger 

association 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 2-3266
 
8.0 

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). Stream 

turbulence 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 2-3267
 
Chapter 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 2-3268
 
Chapter 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 2-3269
 
Chapter 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 2-3270
 
Chapter 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 2-3271
 
Chapter 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 Works 

Further, 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 2-3272
 
Chapter 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 both 

have 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 2-3273
 
Chapter 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 2-3274
 
Chapter 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 2-3275
 
 

Chapter 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 2-3276
 
Chapter 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 2-3277
 
Chapter 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 2-3278
 
Chapter 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 County 

Streams • 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 2-3279
 
Chapter 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 2-3280
 
Chapter 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 2-3281
 
Chapter 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 2-3282
 
Chapter 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 2-3283
 
Chapter 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 2-3284
 
Chapter 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 2-3285
 
Chapter 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 2-3286
 
Chapter 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 2-3287
 
Chapter 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 2-3288
 
Chapter 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 cannot 

even demonstrate what effect its proposed criteria will have on a designated use. Absent a showing of a cause-andeffect relationship between the proposed criteria and a biological response in the water body, EPA also cannot 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3289
 
Chapter 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 2-3290
 
Chapter 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 2-3291
 
Chapter 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 2-3292
 
Chapter 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 2-3293
 
Chapter 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 2-3294
 
Chapter 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 2-3295
 
Chapter 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 biological 

responses 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 2-3296
 
Chapter 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 2-3297
 
Chapter 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 2-3298
 
Chapter 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 2-3299
 
Chapter 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 cannot 

even demonstrate what effect its proposed criteria will have on a designated use. Absent a showing of a cause-andeffect relationship between the proposed criteria and a biological response in the water body, EPA also cannot 

demonstrate that its proposed numeric criteria are based on "sound scientific rationale" or "scientifically defensible 

methods." 

In fact, 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 2-3300
 
Chapter 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 2-3301
 
Chapter 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 2-3302
 
Chapter 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 2-3303
 
Chapter 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 2-3304
 
Chapter 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 2-3305
 
Chapter 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 in 

time 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 2-3306
 
Chapter 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 2-3307
 
Chapter 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 2-3308
 
Chapter 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 2-3309
 
Chapter 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 2-3310
 
Chapter 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 2-3311
 
Chapter 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 2-3312
 
Chapter 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 2-3313
 
Chapter 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 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, 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3314
 
Chapter 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 2-3315
 
Chapter 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 2-3316
 
Chapter 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 2-3317
 
Chapter 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 2-3318
 
Chapter 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 2-3319
 
Chapter 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 2-3320
 
Chapter 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 2-3321
 
Chapter 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 2-3322
 
Chapter 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 2-3323
 
Chapter 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 2-3324
 
Chapter 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: "SCI 

appeared 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 2-3325
 
Chapter 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 2-3326
 
Chapter 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 proposing 

limits 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 2-3327
 
Chapter 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 2-3328
 
Chapter 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 2-3329
 
Chapter 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 2-3330
 
Chapter 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 2-3331
 
Chapter 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 2-3332
 
Chapter 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 2-3333
 
Chapter 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 2-3334
 
Chapter 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 2-3335
 
Chapter 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 2-3336
 
 

 

Chapter 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 2-3337
 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 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: "SCI 

appeared 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 2-3338
 
 

Chapter 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 2-3339
 
Chapter 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 2-3340
 
Chapter 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 2-3341
 
Chapter 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 2-3342
 
Chapter 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 2-3343
 
Chapter 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 2-3344
 
Chapter 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 2-3345
 
Chapter 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 2-3346
 
Chapter 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 2-3347
 
Chapter 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 2-3348
 
Chapter 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 2-3349
 
Chapter 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 2-3350
 
Chapter 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 2-3351
 
Chapter 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 2-3352
 
Chapter 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 2-3353
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

11. Additional significant factors may also need to be included in the reference stream approach. For example: "SCI 

appeared 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 2-3354
 
Chapter 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 2-3355
 
Chapter 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 proposing 

limits 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 2-3356
 
Chapter 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 2-3357
 
Chapter 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 2-3358
 
Chapter 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 2-3359
 
Chapter 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 2-3360
 
Chapter 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 2-3361
 
Chapter 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 2-3362
 
Chapter 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 2-3363
 
Chapter 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 2-3364
 
Chapter 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 2-3365
 
Chapter 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 2-3366
 
Chapter 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 Deficiencies 

EPA 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 2-3367
 
Chapter 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 2-3368
 
Chapter 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 2-3369
 
Chapter 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 2-3370
 
Chapter 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 2-3371
 
Chapter 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 2-3372
 
Chapter 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 2-3373
 
Chapter 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 2-3374
 
Chapter 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 2-3375
 
Chapter 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 few 

climatically 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 precipitation 

above 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 2-3376
 
Chapter 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 2-3377
 
Chapter 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 2-3378
 
Chapter 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 2-3379
 
Chapter 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 land 

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 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 2-3380
 
Chapter 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 2-3381
 
Chapter 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 2-3382
 
Chapter 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 2-3383
 
Chapter 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 2-3384
 
Chapter 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 2-3385
 
Chapter 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 2-3386
 
Chapter 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 2-3387
 
Chapter 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 2-3388
 
Chapter 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 2-3389
 
Chapter 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 2-3390
 
Chapter 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 2-3391
 
Chapter 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 2-3392
 
Chapter 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 2-3393
 
Chapter 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 2-3394
 
Chapter 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 2-3395
 
Chapter 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 2-3396
 
Chapter 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 2-3397
 
Chapter 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 2-3398
 
Chapter 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 2-3399
 
Chapter 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 2-3400
 
Chapter 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 2-3401
 
Chapter 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 2-3402
 
Chapter 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 2-3403
 
Chapter 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 2-3404
 
Chapter 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 2-3405
 
Chapter 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 2-3406
 
Chapter 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 2-3407
 
Chapter 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 2-3408
 
Chapter 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 2-3409
 
Chapter 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 2-3410
 
Chapter 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 2-3411
 
Chapter 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 2-3412
 
Chapter 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 2-3413
 
Chapter 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 2-3414
 
Chapter 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 2-3415
 
Chapter 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 2-3416
 
Chapter 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 2-3417
 
Chapter 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 2-3418
 
Chapter 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 2-3419
 
Chapter 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 2-3420
 
Chapter 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 2-3421
 
Chapter 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 secondary 

role 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 2-3422
 
Chapter 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 2-3423
 
Chapter 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 2-3424
 
Chapter 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 2-3425
 
Chapter 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 2-3426
 
Chapter 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 2-3427
 
 

Chapter 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 2-3428
 
Chapter 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 2-3429
 
Chapter 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 2-3430
 
Chapter 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 2-3431
 
Chapter 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 2-3432
 
Chapter 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 2-3433
 
Chapter 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 2-3434
 
Chapter 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 2-3435
 
Chapter 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 2-3436
 
Chapter 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 of 

all 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 2-3437
 
Chapter 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 2-3438
 
Chapter 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 2-3439
 
Chapter 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 2-3440
 
Chapter 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 2-3441
 
Chapter 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 2-3442
 
Chapter 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 2-3443
 
Chapter 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 few 

climatically 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 precipitation 

above 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 2-3444
 
Chapter 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 2-3445
 
Chapter 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 2-3446
 
Chapter 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 2-3447
 
Chapter 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 land 

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 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 2-3448
 
Chapter 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 2-3449
 
Chapter 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 2-3450
 
Chapter 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 2-3451
 
Chapter 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 2-3452
 
Chapter 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 2-3453
 
Chapter 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 2-3454
 
Chapter 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 2-3455
 
Chapter 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 2-3456
 
Chapter 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 2-3457
 
Chapter 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 2-3458
 
Chapter 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 2-3459
 
Chapter 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 2-3460
 
Chapter 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 2-3461
 
Chapter 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 2-3462
 
Chapter 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 2-3463
 
Chapter 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 2-3464
 
Chapter 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 2-3465
 
Chapter 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 2-3466
 
Chapter 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 2-3467
 
Chapter 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 2-3468
 
Chapter 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 2-3469
 
Chapter 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 few 

climatically 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 precipitation 

above 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 2-3470
 
Chapter 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 2-3471
 
Chapter 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 2-3472
 
Chapter 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 2-3473
 
Chapter 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 2-3474
 
Chapter 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 anomaly 

could 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 2-3475
 
Chapter 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 2-3476
 
Chapter 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 2-3477
 
Chapter 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 2-3478
 
Chapter 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 2-3479
 
Chapter 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 2-3480
 
Chapter 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 2-3481
 
Chapter 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 2-3482
 
Chapter 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 2-3483
 
Chapter 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 2-3484
 
Chapter 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 2-3485
 
Chapter 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 few 

climatically 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 precipitation 

above 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 2-3486
 
Chapter 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 2-3487
 
Chapter 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 land 

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 

11/19/2010 02:48 PM EST 2-3488
 
Chapter 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 2-3489
 
Chapter 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 2-3490
 
Chapter 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 2-3491
 
Chapter 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 2-3492
 
Chapter 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 2-3493
 
Chapter 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 meeting 

allowable 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 2-3494
 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 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 2-3495
 
Chapter 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 2-3496
 
Chapter 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 2-3497
 
Chapter 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 2-3498
 
Chapter 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 2-3499
 
Chapter 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 2-3500
 
Chapter 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 2-3501
 
Chapter 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 2-3502
 
Chapter 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 2-3503
 
Chapter 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 2-3504
 
Chapter 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 2-3505
 
Chapter 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 2-3506
 
Chapter 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 2-3507
 
Chapter 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 2-3508
 
Chapter 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 2-3509
 
Chapter 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 the 

stream 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 2-3510
 
Chapter 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 2-3511
 
Chapter 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 2-3512
 
Chapter 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 biologically 

healthy 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 2-3513
 
Chapter 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 2-3514
 
Chapter 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 2-3515
 
Chapter 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 2-3516
 
Chapter 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 2-3517
 
Chapter 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 Agencies 

The 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 2-3518
 
Chapter 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 2-3519
 
Chapter 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 2-3520
 
Chapter 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 2-3521
 
Chapter 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 2-3522
 
Chapter 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 2-3523
 
Chapter 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 2-3524
 
Chapter 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 2-3525
 
Chapter 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 2-3526
 
Chapter 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 2-3527
 
Chapter 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 2-3528
 
Chapter 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 2-3529
 
Chapter 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 2-3530
 
Chapter 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 2-3531
 
Chapter 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 2-3532
 
Chapter 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 2-3533
 
Chapter 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 2-3534
 
Chapter 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 2-3535
 
Chapter 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 2-3536
 
Chapter 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 2-3537
 
Chapter 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 exists 

and 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 2-3538
 
Chapter 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 2-3539
 
Chapter 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 2-3540
 
Chapter 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 2-3541
 
Chapter 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 2-3542
 
Chapter 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 2-3543
 
Chapter 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 2-3544
 
Chapter 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 2-3545
 
Chapter 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 2-3546
 
Chapter 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 control 

watershed. 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 2-3547
 
Chapter 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 2-3548
 
Chapter 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 2-3549
 
Chapter 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 2-3550
 
Chapter 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 2-3551
 
Chapter 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 for 

reference 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 2-3552
 
Chapter 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 2-3553
 
Chapter 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 2-3554
 
Chapter 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 2-3555
 
Chapter 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 2-3556
 
Chapter 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 2-3557
 
Chapter 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 2-3558
 
Chapter 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 2-3559
 
Chapter 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 2-3560
 
Chapter 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 2-3561
 
Chapter 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 2-3562
 
Chapter 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 2-3563
 
Chapter 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 the 

additional 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 2-3564
 
Chapter 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 2-3565
 
Chapter 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 2-3566
 
Chapter 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 2-3567
 
Chapter 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 2-3568
 
Chapter 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 2-3569
 
Chapter 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 2-3570
 
Chapter 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 2-3571
 
Chapter 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 2-3572
 
Chapter 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 2-3573
 
Chapter 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 2-3574
 
Chapter 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 scores 

inherently 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 2-3575
 
Chapter 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 few 

climatically 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 2-3576
 
Chapter 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 precipitation 

above 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 population 

typified 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 2-3577
 
Chapter 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 noted 

above 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 2-3578
 
Chapter 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 2-3579
 
Chapter 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 watershed 

land 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 2-3580
 
Chapter 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 2-3581
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

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 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 2-3582
 
Chapter 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 2-3583
 
Chapter 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 2-3584
 
Chapter 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 2-3585
 
Chapter 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 2-3586
 
Chapter 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 2-3587
 
Chapter 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 2-3588
 
Chapter 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 2-3589
 
Chapter 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 2-3590
 
Chapter 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 2-3591
 
Chapter 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 2-3592
 
Chapter 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 2-3593
 
Chapter 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 2-3594
 
Chapter 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 2-3595
 
Chapter 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 2-3596
 
Chapter 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 2-3597
 
Chapter 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 2-3598
 
Chapter 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 2-3599
 
Chapter 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 2-3600
 
Chapter 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 2-3601
 
Chapter 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 2-3602
 
Chapter 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 2-3603
 
Chapter 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 2-3604
 
Chapter 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 2-3605
 
Chapter 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 2-3606
 
Chapter 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 2-3607
 
Chapter 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 2-3608
 
Chapter 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 2-3609
 
Chapter 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 2-3610
 
Chapter 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 2-3611
 
Chapter 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 2-3612
 
Chapter 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 2-3613
 
Chapter 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 2-3614
 
Chapter 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 2-3615
 
Chapter 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 2-3616
 
Chapter 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 2-3617
 
Chapter 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 2-3618
 
Chapter 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 2-3619
 
Chapter 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 2-3620
 
Chapter 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 2-3621
 
Chapter 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 2-3622
 
Chapter 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 2-3623
 
Chapter 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 2-3624
 
Chapter 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 2-3625
 
Chapter 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 2-3626
 
Chapter 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 exists 

and 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 2-3627
 
Chapter 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 2-3628
 
Chapter 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 2-3629
 
Chapter 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 2-3630
 
Chapter 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 to 

the 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 2-3631
 
Chapter 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 2-3632
 
Chapter 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 2-3633
 
Chapter 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 2-3634
 
Chapter 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 2-3635
 
Chapter 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 2-3636
 
Chapter 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 2-3637
 
Chapter 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-pipe 

compliance 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 2-3638
 
Chapter 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 2-3639
 
Chapter 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 2-3640
 
Chapter 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 2-3641
 
Chapter 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 2-3642
 
Chapter 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 2-3643
 
Chapter 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 2-3644
 
Chapter 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 2-3645
 
Chapter 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 2-3646
 
Chapter 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 2-3647
 
Chapter 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 2-3648
 
Chapter 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 2-3649
 
Chapter 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 2-3650
 
Chapter 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 2-3651
 
Chapter 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 in 

anthropogenic 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 2-3652
 
Chapter 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 2-3653
 
Chapter 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 2-3654
 
Chapter 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 2-3655
 
Chapter 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 2-3656
 
Chapter 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 to 

the 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 2-3657
 
Chapter 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 2-3658
 
Chapter 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 2-3659
 
Chapter 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 2-3660
 
Chapter 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 2-3661
 
Chapter 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 2-3662
 
Chapter 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 2-3663
 
Chapter 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 2-3664
 
Chapter 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 2-3665
 
Chapter 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 2-3666
 
Chapter 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 2-3667
 
Chapter 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 2-3668
 
Chapter 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 2-3669
 
Chapter 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 2-3670
 
Chapter 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 the 

downstream 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 2-3671
 
Chapter 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 2-3672
 
Chapter 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 2-3673
 
Chapter 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 2-3674
 
Chapter 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 2-3675
 
Chapter 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 2-3676
 
Chapter 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 2-3677
 
Chapter 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 2-3678
 
Chapter 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 2-3679
 
Chapter 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 of 

downstream 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 2-3680
 
Chapter 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 2-3681
 
Chapter 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 2-3682
 
Chapter 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 2-3683
 
 

Chapter 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 2-3684
 
Chapter 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 2-3685
 
Chapter 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 2-3686
 
Chapter 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 2-3687
 
Chapter 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 2-3688
 
Chapter 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 2-3689
 
Chapter 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 2-3690
 
Chapter 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 2-3691
 
Chapter 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 2-3692
 
Chapter 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 2-3693
 
Chapter 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 2-3694
 
 

 

Chapter 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 2-3695
 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 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 2-3696
 
Chapter 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 TP 

concentrations (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 2-3697
 
Chapter 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 relationship 

between 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 2-3698
 
 

Chapter 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 inflow 

due 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 a 

criterion 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 2-3699
 
Chapter 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 2-3700
 
Chapter 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 2-3701
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

processes at work in streams, and one that results in downstream phosphorus output being significantly less than 

upstream 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 2-3702
 
Chapter 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 2-3703
 
Chapter 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 2-3704
 
Chapter 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 2-3705
 
Chapter 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 2-3706
 
Chapter 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 2-3707
 
Chapter 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 2-3708
 
Chapter 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 2-3709
 
Chapter 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 2-3710
 
Chapter 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 2-3711
 
Chapter 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 2-3712
 
Chapter 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 2-3713
 
Chapter 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 2-3714
 
Chapter 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 2-3715
 
Chapter 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 2-3716
 
Chapter 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 2-3717
 
Chapter 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 2-3718
 
Chapter 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 2-3719
 
Chapter 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 2-3720
 
Chapter 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 2-3721
 
Chapter 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 2-3722
 
Chapter 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 2-3723
 
Chapter 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 2-3724
 
Chapter 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 2-3725
 
 

Chapter 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 TP 

concentrations (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 2-3726
 
Chapter 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 2-3727
 
Chapter 2 - Comment Documents Rivers and Streams 

between that settling rate and lake depth that is roughly approximated as [Original comment letter contains additional 

information 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 2-3728
 
Chapter 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 2-3729
 
Chapter 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 2-3730
 
Chapter 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 2-3731
 
Chapter 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 2-3732
 
Chapter 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 2-3733
 
Chapter 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 2-3734
 
Chapter 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 2-3735
 
Chapter 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 2-3736
 
Chapter 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 2-3737
 
Chapter 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 2-3738
 
Chapter 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 2-3739
 
Chapter 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 2-3740
 
Chapter 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 2-3741
 
Chapter 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 2-3742
 
Chapter 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 2-3743
 
Chapter 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 2-3744
 
Chapter 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 2-3745
 
Chapter 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 2-3746
 
Chapter 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 2-3747
 
Chapter 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 to 

the 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 2-3748
 
Chapter 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 all 

waterbodies 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 2-3749
 
Chapter 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 2-3750
 
Chapter 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 2-3751
 
Chapter 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 2-3752
 
Chapter 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 2-3753
 
Chapter 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 2-3754
 
Chapter 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 2-3755
 
Chapter 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 2-3756
 
Chapter 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 2-3757
 
Chapter 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 2-3758
 
Chapter 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 2-3759
 
Chapter 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 2-3760
 
Chapter 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 2-3761
 
Chapter 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 2-3762
 
Chapter 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 2-3763
 
Chapter 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 2-3764
 
Chapter 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 2-3765
 
Chapter 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 2-3766
 
Chapter 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 2-3767
 
Chapter 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 2-3768
 
Chapter 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 2-3769
 
Chapter 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 2-3770
 
Chapter 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 2-3771
 
Chapter 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 2-3772
 
Chapter 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 these 

streams 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 stream 

reach 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 2-3773
 
Chapter 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 2-3774
 
Chapter 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 2-3775
 
Chapter 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 2-3776
 
Chapter 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 2-3777
 
Chapter 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 2-3778
 
Chapter 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 2-3779
 
Chapter 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 the 

strength 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 2-3780
 
Chapter 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 2-3781
 
Chapter 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 2-3782
 
Chapter 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 2-3783
 
Chapter 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 2-3784
 
Chapter 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 2-3785
 
Chapter 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 2-3786
 
Chapter 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 2-3787
 
Chapter 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 2-3788
 
Chapter 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 2-3789
 
Chapter 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 2-3790
 
Chapter 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 2-3791
 
Chapter 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 2-3792
 
Chapter 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 in 

determining 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 2-3793
 
Chapter 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 2-3794
 
Chapter 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 2-3795
 
Chapter 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 2-3796
 
Chapter 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 calculation 

of 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 2-3797
 
Chapter 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 2-3798
 
Chapter 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 2-3799
 
Chapter 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 2-3800
 
Chapter 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 2-3801
 
Chapter 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 2-3802
 
Chapter 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 2-3803
 
Chapter 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 2-3804
 
Chapter 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 2-3805
 
Chapter 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 2-3806
 
Chapter 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 2-3807
 
Chapter 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 2-3808
 
Chapter 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 2-3809
 
Chapter 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 2-3810
 
Chapter 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 2-3811
 
Chapter 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 2-3812
 
Chapter 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 2-3813
 
Chapter 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 2-3814
 
Chapter 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 2-3815
 
Chapter 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 2-3816
 
Chapter 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 2-3817
 
Chapter 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 2-3818
 
Chapter 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 2-3819
 
Chapter 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 2-3820
 
Chapter 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 2-3821
 
Chapter 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 estimated 

based 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 2-3822
 
Chapter 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 2-3823
 
Chapter 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 the 

calculations, 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 2-3824
 
Chapter 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 2-3825
 
Chapter 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 2-3826
 
Chapter 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 2-3827
 
Chapter 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 2-3828
 
Chapter 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 2-3829
 
Chapter 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 2-3830
 
Chapter 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 2-3831
 
Chapter 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 2-3832
 
Chapter 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 2-3833
 
Chapter 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 2-3834
 
Chapter 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 2-3835
 
Chapter 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 2-3836
 
Chapter 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 2-3837
 
Chapter 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 in 

an 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 2-3838
 
Chapter 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 2-3839
 
Chapter 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 2-3840
 
Chapter 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 2-3841
 
Chapter 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 2-3842
 
Chapter 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 2-3843
 
Chapter 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 2-3844
 
Chapter 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 2-3845
 
Chapter 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 2-3846
 
Chapter 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 2-3847
 
Chapter 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 2-3848
 
Chapter 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 2-3849
 
Chapter 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 2-3850
 
 

Chapter 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 management 

practices. 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 2-3851
 
Chapter 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 2-3852
 
Chapter 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 2-3853
 
Chapter 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 2-3854
 
Chapter 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 2-3855
 
Chapter 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 2-3856
 
Chapter 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 2-3857
 
Chapter 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 2-3858
 
Chapter 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 2-3859
 
Chapter 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 2-3860
 
Chapter 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 2-3861
 
Chapter 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 important 

and 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 2-3862
 
Chapter 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 2-3863
 
Chapter 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 2-3864
 
Chapter 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 2-3865
 
Chapter 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 2-3866
 
Chapter 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 2-3867
 
Chapter 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 2-3868
 
Chapter 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 2-3869
 
Chapter 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 2-3870
 
Chapter 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 2-3871
 
Chapter 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 2-3872
 
Chapter 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 2-3873
 
Chapter 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 2-3874
 
Chapter 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 2-3875
 
Chapter 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 2-3876
 
Chapter 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 2-3877
 
Chapter 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 2-3878
 
Chapter 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 2-3879
 
Chapter 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 2-3880
 
Chapter 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 2-3881
 
Chapter 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 2-3882
 
Chapter 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 2-3883
 
Chapter 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 2-3884
 
Chapter 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 in 

our 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 2-3885
 
Chapter 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 2-3886
 
Chapter 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 2-3887
 
Chapter 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 2-3888
 
Chapter 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 2-3889
 
Chapter 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 2-3890
 
Chapter 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 2-3891
 
Chapter 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 scientifically 

invalid 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 2-3892
 
Chapter 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 2-3893
 
Chapter 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 2-3894
 
Chapter 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 2-3895
 
Chapter 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 2-3896
 
Chapter 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 2-3897
 
Chapter 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 2-3898
 
Chapter 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 2-3899
 
Chapter 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 2-3900
 
Chapter 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 2-3901
 
Chapter 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 2-3902
 
Chapter 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 2-3903
 
Chapter 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 2-3904
 
Chapter 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 2-3905
 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 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 2-3906
 
Chapter 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 2-3907
 
Chapter 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 within 

the 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 2-3908
 
Chapter 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 2-3909
 
Chapter 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 2-3910
 
Chapter 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 2-3911
 
Chapter 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 2-3912
 
Chapter 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 2-3913
 
Chapter 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 2-3914
 
Chapter 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 nitrogen 

loading 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 2-3915
 
Chapter 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 2-3916
 
Chapter 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 2-3917
 
Chapter 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 is 

incorrect. 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 2-3918
 
Chapter 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 2-3919
 
Chapter 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 2-3920
 
Chapter 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 2-3921
 
Chapter 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 2-3922
 
Chapter 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 2-3923
 
Chapter 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 2-3924
 
Chapter 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 2-3925
 
Chapter 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 2-3926
 
Chapter 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 2-3927
 
Chapter 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 of 

state 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 Bay 

NMC 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 2-3928
 
Chapter 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 2-3929
 
Chapter 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 2-3930
 
Chapter 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 2-3931
 
Chapter 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 2-3932
 
Chapter 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 2-3933
 
Chapter 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 assimilative 

capacity. 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 2-3934
 
Chapter 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 2-3935
 
Chapter 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 2-3936
 
Chapter 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 support 

healthy 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 2-3937
 
Chapter 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 2-3938
 
Chapter 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 2-3939
 
Chapter 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 2-3940
 
Chapter 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 2-3941
 
Chapter 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 2-3942
 
Chapter 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 2-3943
 
Chapter 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 2-3944
 
Chapter 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 2-3945
 
Chapter 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 at 

levels 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 2-3946
 
Chapter 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 2-3947
 
Chapter 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 Terminals 

Eastern 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 2-3948
 
Chapter 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 2-3949
 
Chapter 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 2-3950
 
 

 

Chapter 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 2-3951
 
Chapter 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