Mimi Drew, Director 

Division of Water Resource Management 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Twin Towers Office Building 

2600 Blair Stone Road 

Tallahassee Florida 32399-2400 

Re: EPAfState Mutual Agreement on Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Plan for Florida 

Dear Ms Drew: 

This letter documents mutual agreement between the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

in regard to the final version of the State's voluntary Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development 

Plan, December 2003 (Plan), submitted to EPA in final version for review on December 31,2003. 

Nutrient over-enrichment of the nation's waters is a serious problem, but determination of 

appropriate levels for protection is very complex, and implementation of that protection will be 

challenging. EPA recognizes that this Plan represents considerable effort undertaken by the State 

to address this issue. We especially appreciate the close cooperation of your staff with EPARegion 4 in development of the State's Plan, and your continued support of their participation in 

our Regional Technical Advisory Group (RTAG). The achievement of mutual agreement on your 

Plan reflects the success of that process. 

EPA's review of your Plan was coordinated between Region 4 and the National Nutrient 

Team at EPA Headquarters. The Region 4 review included both the Regional Nutrient 

Coordinators and the Water Quality Standards State Coordinator assigned to your state. Based 

upon our review, we believe this Plan describes a reasonable process by which the State can 

develop appropriate protective numeric nutrient criteria for adoption into State water quality 

standards; and that completion of this process by the target dates indicated in the Plan will provide 

increased protection of state waters from the effects of nutrient over-enrichment. For your 

consideration, we have enclosed some comments from our review that might be useful in the 

further refinement and implementation of your Plan. 

At the end of December, 2004 (and annually thereafter), EPA will use the Plan to evaluate 

the State's progress and determine whether or not the State is likely to complete numeric nutrient 

criteria development and adoption within the agreed upon time frames. If the State has not met 

the milestones as scheduled in the plan, EPA will evaluate whether a federal promulgatign would 

be appropriate. At that time, the Administrator may determine that new or revised standards are 

necessary to meet the Clean Water Act (CWA), and choose to promulgate water quality criteria 
for nutrients applicable to surface waters within Florida in accordance with Section 303 of the 

CWA. However, the Nutrient Criteria Development Plan submitted by FDEP and agreed to here 

makes this possibility unlikely. EPA will make every effort to assist the State in developing 

nutrient criteria in a manner consistent with your Plan. We expect the continued cooperation and 

communication between the State and EPA to lead to scientifically defensible and protective 

nutrient criteria for the State's waters. 

According to the time-line projected in your Plan, we will expect you to submit numeric 

water quality standards for nutrients for associated waterbody types to EPA for approval during 

respective Triennial Reviews. In the interim, we request that the State provide annual updates to 

EPA to document progress according to the Plan. In the event that the Plan needs to be revised, 

changes can be made with mutual agreement, and EPA will update this letter to document our 

agreement with the revisions. 

We applaud the State for making such a significant commitment of time and resources 

toward completion of this endeavor. We are very pleased with the quality of your Plan, and 

appreciate your efforts to prepare and submit it in a timely manner. We look forward to future 

collaboration and FDEP's productive contributions to the Region 4 nutrient criteria development 

effort. 

If you have any questions now, or in the future, regarding this matter, please feel free to 

contact the Florida Water Quality Standards Coordinator on my staff, Cecelia Harper at 

404-562-9418; or one of the Region 4 Nutrient Coordinators, either Ed Decker at 404-562-9383, 

or Jim Harrison, at 404-562-927 1. 

Sincerely yours, 

''James D. Giattina 

Director, Water Management Division 

Enclosure 

cc: Frank Nearhoof, FDEP 

Eric Shaw, FDEP 

Greg Knecht, FDEP 

Ken Weaver, FDEP 

Cecelia Harper, EPA 
Review of State of Florida Nutrient Plan for Mutual Agreement 

EPA-HQJOST National Nutrient Team 

April 6,2004 

The State of Florida Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (Plan) is clearly written and well thought 

out. It is clear that the State takes its water quality seriously. 

Strong Points 

o The first paragraph speaks to classification which is an important element in the process of 

nutrient criteria development. 

o Hiring of a consultant, especially one who is an expert and former State limnologist makes 

imminent sense. Work should be well-executed and coordinated. 

o Using the earlier work on sub-ecoregion and biocriteria work to serve as a basis to develop 

nutrient criteria should save time and resources. 

o The State has apparently developed an extensive nutrient database for freshwater ecosystems. 

o The plan to fill data gaps is sound. 

o Combining an ecoregional and watershed approach makes sense. 

o The prioritization of waterbodies seems reasonable. 

o The State tested several approaches to nutrient criteria development outlined in the EPA 

Nutrient Guidance Manuals (paleolimnological coring) and determined that some of these 

approaches were too expensive to apply on an ecoregional basis but were useful for 

limited site-specific analysis. 

o The State has formed a Technical Advisory Body that will work with the EPA Region 4 RTAG 

and coordinated on shared waterbodies among adjoining States. 

o The State will attempt to use the EPA causal and response variables. 

o The plan includes information that suggests the State is aware of the need to refine their 

designated uses. 

o The use of a physical classification system is desirable to reduce variability in expected 

relationships. I 

Page 1 of 2 
o The schedule for nutrient criteria development begins with lakes and streams, then moves to 

estuaries, and later to wetlands. The data availability is a major determining factor for the 

schedule. 

o The detailed schedule helps EPA track the important activities. 

Some Points for Clarification 

o The plan mentions the expectation that some EPA funds will be needed to make the expected 

schedule. It is unclear how much funding is needed and how long it will take to carry out 

the work if the EPA funds are not forthcoming. 

o It is not clear how major dissent by the Environmental Regulatory Commission (ERC) would be 

managed by the State should such dissent develop. 

o It is not clear whether the State has some idea of minimal data requirements for nutrient criteria 

development so that major surprises are minimized. 

o It is not clear how criteria between rivers and estuaries will be adjusted when the plan is to 

begin with rivers. Criteria initially developed to protect designated uses in rivers and 

streams, may not turn out to be sufficiently protective of downstream estuaries when that 

analysis is undertaken and may require revision. It is not clearly indicated in the Plan how 

the State would address this future possibility. 

o Some of the larger estuaries are somewhat protected as they are addressed through the National 

Estuary Programs in place. It is not clear how the State plans to address the smaller 

estuaries in terms of priority. 

o The State appears to plan on the use of modeling at some point, but gives little mention of how 

to balance the approach of combining "reference conditions" with modeling. 

o Although coordination is mentioned, it is not clear how the State will accommodate any 

differences in designated uses andlor nutrient criteria in interstate waterbodies. This could 

be one of the more difficult issues to resolve. 

Summarv 

Overall, we find this to be a thoughtful plan. We believe that the plan should lead to improved 

protection of the State's waterbodies from nutrient over-enrichment. 

Page 2 of 2