Mimi Drew, Director Division of Water Resource Management Florida Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair StoneRoad TallahasseeFlorida 32399-2400 Re: EPAfState Mutual Agreement on Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Plan for Florida Dear Ms Drew: This letter documents mutual agreementbetween theFlorida 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 toEPA in final version forreview on December 31,2003. Nutrient over-enrichment of the nation's waters is a seriousproblem, but determination of appropriate levels for protection is very complex, andimplementation of that protection will be challenging. EPArecognizes 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. TheRegion 4review includedboth 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 Statecan 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 ourreview that might be useful in the furtherrefinement and implementation of your Plan. At the end of December, 2004 (and annually thereafter), EPA will use the Plan toevaluate the State's progress and determine whether ornot the State is likely tocomplete 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 criteriafor nutrients applicable to surface waters within Florida in accordance with Section 303 of the CWA. However, the Nutrient Criteria Development Plan submittedby FDEP and agreed to here makes this possibility unlikely. EPA will make every effort to assistthe Statein 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 forthe 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 waterbodytypes to EPA for approval during respective Triennial Reviews. In the interim, we request that the Stateprovide annual updates to EPA to document progress accordingto 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 atimely 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, eitherEdDecker at 404-562-9383, or Jim Harrison, at 404-562-9271. 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 Statetakes its water quality seriously. 

### StrongPoints
oThefirst 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 Statelimnologist makes imminent sense. Work shouldbe well-executed and coordinated.
o Using the earlier work on sub-ecoregion and biocriteria work to serve as abasis to develop nutrient criteria should save time and resources.
oThe State has apparently developed an extensive nutrient database for freshwater ecosystems.
oTheplan to fill data gaps is sound. o Combining an ecoregional and watershed approach makes sense.
oTheprioritization of waterbodies seemsreasonable.
oThe Statetested 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.
oThe Statehas formed a Technical Advisory Body that will work with the EPA Region 4 RTAG and coordinated on shared waterbodies among adjoining States.
oThe State will attempt to use the EPA causal and response variables.
oTheplan includes information that suggests the State is aware 

### of the need to refine their designated uses.
oThe use of aphysical classification system is desirable to reduce variability in expected relationships. I Page 1of 2o 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 Theplan mentions the expectation that some EPA funds will be needed to make the expected schedule. It isunclear how much funding isneeded and how long it will take to carry out the work if the EPA funds are not forthcoming.
o It is not clearhow 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 Statehas some idea of minimal datarequirements for nutrient criteria development sothat major surprises are minimized.
o It is not clear how criteriabetween rivers and estuaries will be adjusted when the plan isto 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 isnot clearly indicated in the Plan how the Statewould 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 Stateplans 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 tobe 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